-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
scott jones
Member
Given ALL of the salvaged work done on other cars, Tesla should figure out a new way of dealing with this issue and similar ones.
I think most of us have new enough cars this hasn't affected us YET.
But what happens when YOU get in an accident, out of warranty, etc.
Do you want to be beholden to Tesla's decision to allow your car to turn on (Flip the switch) or be repaired.
This is THE ONE case where I've seen the majority of Tesla owners on this forum disagree or at least question what Tesla is doing or failing to do.
My guess is, Elon et al is already thinking about this, especially as more and more cars age or get in wrecks.
He's not an idiot, and THIS could really hurt their reputation if not dealt with soon.
I think most of us have new enough cars this hasn't affected us YET.
But what happens when YOU get in an accident, out of warranty, etc.
Do you want to be beholden to Tesla's decision to allow your car to turn on (Flip the switch) or be repaired.
This is THE ONE case where I've seen the majority of Tesla owners on this forum disagree or at least question what Tesla is doing or failing to do.
My guess is, Elon et al is already thinking about this, especially as more and more cars age or get in wrecks.
He's not an idiot, and THIS could really hurt their reputation if not dealt with soon.
It's ultimately Tesla's reputation and liability on the line, so they can make their own rules in that regard. The guy doesn't want to sign a simple waiver and did not do his homework before he bought the car. I don't see how this is Tesla's problem, or why Tesla is being criticized. They have their policy, which could have been easily known if this guy had made a simple phone call before writing a check.
At the core, should you be allowed to work on anything you own? Or should the manufacturer have the right to disable it remotely on their whim?
For example, I've known folks that replaced a cracked iPhone screen themselves. Should Apple have the right to disable that phone if the user doesn't sign some sort of waiver about the repair?
It's the same principle.
For example, I've known folks that replaced a cracked iPhone screen themselves. Should Apple have the right to disable that phone if the user doesn't sign some sort of waiver about the repair?
It's the same principle.
The state, however, is the legal arbiter of what is road worthy, not Tesla. And Tesla already has liability release verbiage in that document. Finally, this same mechanism for dealing with salvage vehicles already exists and is used successfully by other manufacturers.
So I'm not sure that's a compelling argument.
They could certainly explode or catch fire if someone botched the repair and certainly hurt someone or cause major damage...catches fire, burns down a house with people in it.
That unlikely scenario aside, there are a TON of electronic or mechanical items that could theoretically kill or maim people. There are also a lot of normal repairs someone could do that a manufacturer could decide is risky.
Should you not be allowed to replace your own brake pads?
After all, you could get it wrong and the car wouldn't stop. You could kill people. Repaired ICE cars can, and have, killed people. Only Tesla is remotely disabling products against their owners wishes based on their subjective definition of "inappropriate" repairs.
Defending Tesla here is setting a very slippery slope precedent that any manufacturer, of almost any item, could choose to disable your product if they felt you had inappropriately modified it. Would you defend GM if they remotely shut down all their cars where someone hadn't had engine work done at the dealership?
I'd think very carefully about ceding that sort of authority.
Last edited:
I don't believe that Tesla remote disabled it. It was disabled due to the crash. Tesla refuses to touch the car unless their liability waiver is signed. That's not the same thing as Tesla disabling the car remotely.
The big issue is why write off the car as a total loss. The value of the salvage vehicle needs to drop so that insurance companies will not declare total loss on vehicles that are easily repairable, even if they are expensive. Their calculated salvage values are too high right now or too unknown so they declare total loss in too many situations. Instead, these cars should be repaired.
With that said, Tesla's approach to out of warranty and salvage title cars does need to change. However, I can see that anything related to the drive unit or battery system is going to be very tough for DIY'ers or 3rd party non-Tesla certified repair shops.
I get what you're saying, but it seems like splitting hairs. Tesla shut it down, whether as an active choice or a byproduct of a choice they made in their coding. Either way, at this moment, Tesla is choosing to keep an item disabled that Tesla does not own against the owners wishes. The owner even wants to use it for something that's basically in line with it's intended purpose...a Tesla battery powering a Tesla motor.
Should Tesla have the right to disable any Saleen modified car? After all, they've mucked with the drive train.
I suspect there's probably a very interesting legal concept/precedent at play here and I wonder if/when it'll go through a court system. We're probably seeing a case where technology changes have outpaced laws currently on the books in this area. It'd be nice if it didn't require a lawsuit to clarify, but sadly, that's how the system seems to usually work.
Rebel44
Member
He should have researched what must be done for that car to work. If I was ever thinking about buying slavage title car, it would be only if damage is cosmetical and car can be driven in current condition - everything else is expensive gamble.
It will be interesting when something like this happens in EU, since we have much stronger consumer protection laws.
It will be interesting when something like this happens in EU, since we have much stronger consumer protection laws.
It's not splitting hairs. I believe there's are NHTSA guidelines for EV's involved in accidents - I can't find it at the moment, but I'll keep looking. Tesla is choosing to error on the side of safety when it comes to accidents. Considerations for salvage titled cars is completely secondary and separate. Once the vehicle has been through an accident and then declared a total loss, there are serious ramifications for Tesla especially as a small and young company with new technology.
I think Tesla would rather these cars be repaired at certified repair shops. Providing the parts alone isn't enough for Tesla repair. You have to have the diagnostics software and the training in order to properly repair the Model S. Hopefully the NADA fight will spark Tesla to take action sooner rather than later to determine just how a Tesla outside of warranty can be repaired by a non-Tesla certified repair center. As with many young companies, maybe they figured this was something they could push off for a bit. After all, almost all cars are under warranty and serviced by Tesla owned Service Centers right now.
Last edited:
Define "accident". I had a headlight broken and my car didn't require asking Tesla to reactivate it.
A car can be totaled without affecting the battery or drive train or some such. In the San Diego case, the car was totaled on a monetary value level, but apparently the battery wasn't damaged.
From the article:
That's true with every car. Tesla doesn't get to have a special exemption carved out for themselves on this.
The guy is apparently also getting screwed the insurance company who sold as "salvage" a car that's not repairable (because of Tesla's stance), which is apparently against DMV rules. But, of course, he's getting nowhere with the insurance company either.
Is the car a physical good that I have rights to as owner or am I simply purchasing usage rights to a "service" that Tesla can discontinue?
10 years from now when someone smashes my fender and that totals the car on a value level, is Tesla going to deactivate my perfectly fine (aside from a rumpled fender) car?
The original article was updated with a response from Tesla:
I don't see anything unreasonable here from a Tesla perspective. Seems to me like the dude tried to get a $100K car on the cheap and didn't do his homework.
I don't see anything unreasonable here from a Tesla perspective. Seems to me like the dude tried to get a $100K car on the cheap and didn't do his homework.
omgwtfbyobbq
Active Member
The last part sounds like BS to me. I can buy all sorts of parts that could present a danger to myself or others via improper installation. No manufacturer/dealer I'm aware of would refuse to sell me a part because there's a risk that a repair might not meet their safety standard. That risk is on me, not them.
palmer_md
Member
I wish people would not say he did not do his homework. This is a fairly new policy. Salvage cars have been getting repaired and Tesla only recently stopped selling the spare parts and disabling the vehicles. Otmar got caught up in this with his project taking a salvage Model S and grafting it to his stretch Vanagon. ( Pariah | Stretchla Blog ) I'm sure this person got caught the same way. Tesla needs to establish a firm policy on how they will handle salvage vehicles and then you can say someone has not done their homework. In the mean time it seems like it has been a moving target for a few months.
I agree with Tesla, that they need to protect their reputation and insure that the cars are roadworthy, but I also see that if someone owns a vehicle they should be able to repair it and at least have a functioning vehicle that they can bring to their state inspector to verify its roadworthiness. Tesla should not be required to warranty this vehicle in any way, nor servicing it, nor should supercharger access be allowed if they decide, but the onboard charger should not be disabled which essentially just "bricks" the car. I've read the document that Tesla is asking them to sign, and the version I read seemed fair to me. They are just covering themselves. Fix the vehicle properly and they will work with you, if you try to shortcut this, your going to have to do it on your own.
Exactly. How many people on this site have built or modified EVs? We all want to live in a world where tinkering is encouraged. But Tesla's liability concerns will not be resolved until it is tested in court. I hope they let that happen.
Krugerrand
Meow
Nowhere has it been said just exactly what has to be repaired on this car that has Tesla concerned. It doesn't sound like we're talking about a bumper or some brake pads. I suspect we're talking about some battery stuff here that very few know how to fix/deal with. With what Tesla already has had to deal with in that department, it's easy to understand their caution. Sign the form, let Tesla inspect what they want to inspect - which they've offered to do at no charge - and get on with it already.
