San Diego Man's $58,000 Nightmare with a (Salvage Title) Tesla Model S

[breser]

Tesla only has to "fix" it because Tesla "broke" it in the first place by deactivating it.

Again, name any other manufactured product, anything, where you have to beg (and pay) the manufacturer to re-enable it if you bought it used or damaged.

- - - Updated - - -


What stops Tesla from just disabling it again?

Who says he needs Tesla to enable it? I'm pretty sure other people have repaired the fusing on the battery from salvaged vehicles to get them running again. As I understand it this fusing exists to contain high voltage within the battery after an accident as a safety feature. I've even seen people suggest this is a legal requirement.

As far as I can tell he just doesn't know how to do the work so he's asking Tesla to do it. Best as I can tell his major concern is that Tesla wants to charge him to do the inspection before undertaking any work or selling parts. The cost of the inspection is open ended, but isn't to be any more than the actual labor to carry it out. He probably is concerned about Tesla coming up with an high bill and then taking the car with a mechanics lien. Tesla has offered to do the inspection for free based on the update in the article. Thus in effect negating any such concern.

Given that his concerns have been resolved I don't really understand what all this discussion about who's fault it is that the battery is disabled right now. He can just have Tesla inspect it. They'll tell him what needs to be done. If he's unwilling to do what they say needs to be done or Tesla says it can't be repaired then he's on his own to try and repair it or he's just lost on his bet. If it's repaired as it is and just needs the battery enabled as he suggests then Tesla can do that quickly for him and he'll have made out very well.

In general I think that Tesla should be providing the information on how to repair vehicles safely and allowing other people to carry out the work. If not they should do inspections for free, as they have ended up saying they'll do. That doesn't mean that Tesla needs to do the repair for free. Nor does it mean that owners are obligated to do the work that Tesla says is needed. But I do think Tesla should be doing the inspections for free if they actually care about safety as they say they do. Because all the inspection fee situation does is drive people who are highly cost sensitive away from even dealing with Tesla and then they will get unsafe cars on the road for sure.

 

[ToddRLockwood]

Looking back at Peter Rutman's original claims about Tesla's handling of the situation, it appears that he exercised a good deal of deductive reasoning in predicting Tesla's potential actions. Tesla's public response makes this abundantly clear.

A salvage Model S is a unique animal, and it can't be compared to a salvage gasoline car because of the risks involved in repairing it, not just driving it. Handling a 400V 85kWh battery and its related wiring is not for amateurs or even untrained professionals. The risk of workshop fatalities is quite real.

Tesla's approach to dealing with salvage title electric vehicles will likely be echoed by other manufacturers as battery capacities become more robust in other brands. A separate salvage/repair standard for EVs is inevitable.

 

[scaesare]

As a point of clarification (there have been a LOT of long posts in the recent day or two on this, so apologies if I've missed it):

Do we know for a fact that Tesla took action to "disable" the car after the impact?

Or, is it a case of the care having been designed such that the vehicle computer won't re-engage the pack contactors post-impact until they are reset (ostensibly as part of repair service)?


As one scenario is Tesla taking action, and the other Tesla NOT taking action (until the liability waiver is signed), it would seem an important distinction...

 

[CanuckS#69]

I keep seeing references to Tesla somehow being unique in having cars that must be reset after an accident, but to my knowledge this has been true for many/most cars since the 80's and 90's. For example, I've owned 80-90's era Land Rovers that had a physical switch that was triggered on rollover that disabled the entire vehicle. With sufficient knowledge, one could locate and reset this switch, otherwise one needed the dealership to do it for you. This guy doesn't know how to re-enable charging and needs Tesla to do it for him. For some reason, he seems to be paranoid about signing a liability waiver to have them do so and thus is stuck with a very nice looking garage decoration.

 

[russman]

Until Tesla's are viewed as regular cars and not something special, they need to do what they need to do to protect their reputation. When we stop hearing about a Tesla being stolen, getting into an accident, catching fire, etc (ie becoming truly mainstream) only then can Tesla be treated like other car mfgs. The reason a Tesla salvage is different then a Honda salvage, is when the Honda salvage goes wrong, no one cares. If a Tesla salvage goes wrong, everyone will hear about it and no one will remember it was because it was repaired incorrectly. It will just be another headline grabber of Tesla car killed someone.

 

[JohnQ]

This isn't selling someone a part. This is enabling an uninspected system that was in an accident. Tesla would have enormous legal liability for turning on the pack if there are subsequent problems. Any attorney would argue that this is a proprietary component of the vehicle without existing documentation or repair information available outside of Tesla Motors. Further, it being known that the vehicle was in an accident, they were at the very least negligent in enabling the battery system without an inspection.

For the broader question, we do need to push Tesla to make repair documentation available as soon as possible. And I hope publicity like this makes that happen. It's also good for Tesla as it will reduce their liability.

 

[seanahan]

For some reason, he seems to be paranoid about signing a liability waiver

Did you even read the news story? The liability waiver is not the issue. It's that Tesla has to be given final approval over whether the car is road-worthy, which could be never, or after tens of thousands of dollars of repairs not truly necessary. "Oh, the door handles don't all recess correctly when you lock it, it's not road-worthy, sorry".

 

[skboston]

I read the updated article and it's good to find out that Tesla will waive the fee for inspection, but being the only one to determine it's road worthiness is a bit too much power. They are small car manufacturer at this point, but as they become mainstream it is too much power to have and if they want to keep their good name issues like this will need to be handled and 3rd parties (maybe the state or some shops) allowed to inspect the car.
If not, Tesla's along other EV cars once salvaged, should not be sold with salvaged titles to the public.

 

[qwk]

Some of you don't realize that Tesla is also at risk of stepping on their own foot with this rule. Once the value of salvage Tesla's plummets, then the real fun begins. People that wouldn't normally have a chance of buying one will acquire them(cause they are cheap now), hack the system, and do with them as they please, with much more potential of little unsafe Tesla f*reballs roaming around everywhere.

 

[omarsultan]

The battery disconnection is a federal crash safety requirements, part of the infamous* FMVSS No. 305, that require the high voltage components to be disconnected from the chassis after a crash, so first responders and passengers do not get electrocuted if they accidentally touch an energized frame. Minimally, we know the Telsa uses an explosive bolt to accomplish this--not sure is there is also a SW switch invovled.

O

* Infamous because Toyota is currently trying to get a waiver from this for their FCEV

 

[AmpedRealtor]

I can't believe the high level of nonsense in here.

The battery is disabled in a crash due to a federal safety guideline for which Toyota is trying to get a waiver. It is the previous owner who smashed the car (not Tesla) and it is a federal safety guideline that requires the battery to be disabled in the event of a crash (not Tesla). Maybe the salvage guy should be calling the White House instead of Tesla.

Furthermore, before anyone comments on Tesla's liability waiver please take the time to actually read the document.

The salvage guy needs Tesla's help in order to fix the car he bought in an as-is sale and Tesla has provided him with the conditions under which it would agree to do so. Tesla is under no legal, ethical, or moral obligation to fix a car that has been totaled and where the owner is unwilling to agree to Tesla's terms under which it would repair the vehicle. The last time I checked, this was a free country.

I said this before, but don't you think this salvage guy should have done some basic homework and asked Tesla if it would cooperate BEFORE he risked throwing $58,000 at something that nobody but Tesla can repair? Tesla has every right, and indeed an obligation to ensure things are done properly. This is not just any car, it's a car that requires a high level of engineering knowledge to repair from such a poor condition. The salvage guy likely does not possess the knowledge required in software, battery and electrical engineering that would be needed to fix this car.

Caveat emptor. Sorry.

 

[JST]

Agreed. I've mentioned this before and was attacked pretty roundly, but I've been fixing and building cars for awhile now, and I have never seen anything like what Tesla has going on with their strict control of repairability and restriction of parts to authorized service centers. Dealers are slimy on the sales side, and are expensive for repairs (since they essentially subsidize the sales side), but they provide a buffer between the manufacturer and owner.

I had some hope that if anyone would be able to maintain a balance in this area is would be Tesla, but it's looking increasingly like Tesla intends to be hostile towards anything that's not stock or not fixed by one of their authorize repair centers (which are absolutely, astoundingly expensive). That should worry anyone here that intends to keep the car long term. Further, I fail to see why Tesla deserves special treatment in this area: with the exception of possibly Ferrari, no other manufacturer that I'm aware of does anything like this.



I was a little surprised by that as well. I can buy any part I want for my track vehicle, and I've bought some dangerous parts. Hell, a standard automotive 12V battery has plenty of juice to kill you, but you can buy those (fully charged, I might add!) from Wal-Mart. Honda sold me everything I needed to replace the clutch in a Civic: the clutch itself, pullies, belts, water pumps, transmission bushings. At 16 I had no idea what I was doing, but I partially pulled the engine, dropped the transmission, and replaced the clutch. I could have killed myself at any of a dozen points, or someone else if I botched the repair, but it was quite rightfully not Honda's responsibility. Nor would a similar situation be Tesla's responsibility here.



This is what I find the most troubling. The answers are clearly "it's not different" and "they should not." Tesla is no different from any other auto manufacturer, and the same applies to all of them.

All of this, x100. There is absolutely no reason--none at all--to restrict the availability of spare parts. There is a dark side to centralized control by the manufacturer, and this is it.

 

[KOL2000]

All of this, x100. There is absolutely no reason--none at all--to restrict the availability of spare parts. There is a dark side to centralized control by the manufacturer, and this is it.

Agree 100% with amped realtor and 100% disagree with JST and gizmo. The latter mindset uses broken logic and slippery slope arguments.

Consider this - if you would have killed yourself tinkering as a kid Honda and Walmart would not be on the news and riots wouldn't break out.

If the imbecile that shelled out 60k before consulting with tesla kills himself by electrocution or something else the media will have a field day, tesla stock will drop to 0, and it will take years to repair the PR nightmare.

Give it time. I'm sure in 10-20 years our kids will be playing with spare EV parts and tinkering. Now is not the time. As a tesla fanatic and investor- I applaud them for carefully controlling things at this early stage!!!

 

[Gizmotoy]

Agree 100% with amped realtor and 100% disagree with JST and gizmo. The latter mindset uses broken logic and slippery slope arguments.

Consider this - if you would have killed yourself tinkering as a kid Honda and Walmart would not be on the news and riots wouldn't break out.

If the imbecile that shelled out 60k before consulting with tesla kills himself by electrocution or something else the media will have a field day, tesla stock will drop to 0, and it will take years to repair the PR nightmare.

Give it time. I'm sure in 10-20 years our kids will be playing with spare EV parts and tinkering. Now is not the time. As a tesla fanatic and investor- I applaud them for carefully controlling things at this early stage!!!

I can't say it makes sense saying owners should have access to parts is broken logic. In some cases, Tesla won't even sell you the rear camera (see the other threads), which is of zero danger to owners and requires no training to handle.

Of all the arguments presented, I find "we deserve special treatment because we're famous and often on the news" by far the least convincing. I disagree with but at least understand some of the other opinions here, but being the subject of media attention isn't a valid justification for denying part access/repairability and inflating repair costs.

Then, as an investor, there's the added concern about Tesla inserting themselves into the liability equation. No other manufacturers "approve" salvaged vehicles. Imagine now what happens should a Tesla-approved salvage vehicle be involved in some sort of incident. That is a worse situation than the hands-off approach everyone else uses. If you're worried about the headlines above all else, which it appears many are, that should be a very real concern.

 

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Providing him with parts/information won't somehow make Tesla legally responsible in any place I'm aware of and is just as much broken logic. People have been buying parts from manufacturers and rebuilding vehicles for decades, and all of the liability rests with the entity making the repairs, and maybe the DMV/agency inspecting the vehicle if they miss something due to gross negligence.

With that said, Tesla may want to protect their brand image and protect the profitability of their service centers/approved repair facilities. In general, service centers have great gross margins, something like 8 times that of sales. Most manufacturers have to deal with competition from other corporations, small shops, and even DIYers. If Tesla can minimize/eliminate that then they'll be extremely profitable.

The Surprising Ways Car Dealers Make The Most Money Off You - Forbes

Unfortunately that would negate most of the advantages of direct sales/lower running costs of EVs, but it that's Tesla's business model, it is what it is.

 

[Hank42]

It seems to me the sticking point here is that Tesla wants to have final say on the safety and drivability; and may confiscate the veicle if it is not up to Tesla's standards.
In some(most?) states, the safety of a vehicle and therefore road-worthiness is determined by a state inspection facility, and NOT the manufacturer. My BRADN NEW Tesla fresh off the truck needed to be inspected by my state before I could drive it/register it.
I agree with Tesla's liability waiver, but I think they are taking it too far by insisting they have the final say - I say let the state safety inspector worry about it, or reword the document to push it into the state registration officials court, and then sell parts/service!

 

[tga]

I said this before, but don't you think this salvage guy should have done some basic homework and asked Tesla if it would cooperate BEFORE he risked throwing $58,000 at something that nobody but Tesla can repair?

Probably, but...

Tesla has every right, and indeed an obligation to ensure things are done properly.

No more than any other manufacturer

This is not just any car, it's a car that requires a high level of engineering knowledge to repair from such a poor condition. The salvage guy likely does not possess the knowledge required in software, battery and electrical engineering that would be needed to fix this car.

Caveat emptor. Sorry.

I call BS on this whole "Teslas are magic and can only be fixed by special magic elves" theory. In this specific case, we have no idea how much or what was damaged on the car. But if the drivetrain is not effected in the crash, then fixing/rebuilding a Tesla is no more difficult then any other aluminum bodied car. All cars today have computers, CAN busses, etc. The Model S has a slightly fancier console, but other than that and an electric drivetrain, face it, it's not that different from many other cars on the road. Ever seen the LCD dash on a new S-class?

I can't say it makes sense saying owners should have access to parts is broken logic. In some cases, Tesla won't even sell you the rear camera (see the other threads), which is of zero danger to owners and requires no training to handle.

As an example, Porsche is happy to sell me parts for a car I routinely drive over 160mph. If Porsche is OK with me doing my own brake work, I think Tesla should be, too.

 

[JST]

Probably, but...

No more than any other manufacturer

I call BS on this whole "Teslas are magic and can only be fixed by special magic elves" theory. In this specific case, we have no idea how much or what was damaged on the car. But if the drivetrain is not effected in the crash, then fixing/rebuilding a Tesla is no more difficult then any other aluminum bodied car. All cars today have computers, CAN busses, etc. The Model S has a slightly fancier console, but other than that and an electric drivetrain, face it, it's not that different from many other cars on the road. Ever seen the LCD dash on a new S-class?


As an example, Porsche is happy to sell me parts for a car I routinely drive over 160mph. If Porsche is OK with me doing my own brake work, I think Tesla should be, too.

I was going to say something remarkably similar to this, and to a couple of the comments above. I ordered new rotors for my Porsche, put them on in my back yard, and within a week used them to stop the car from 130 mph lap after lap at a two day track day. Porsche didn't care, because if I'd screwed up the install and killed myself, whose fault would that have been? As long as the parts weren't defective, not Porsche's.

I also wonder about inserting the company so directly into the determination of safety. Why do that? Why take on the mantle of determining road worthiness? It doesn't make any sense. Put a click-wrap liability waiver on the OS downloads if you are worried that providing ongoing support somehow implicates you in the continued operation of an improperly repaired vehicle.

I can sort of sympathize with the argument that the HV pack and ancillary components are dangerous and shouldn't be played with (though I don't see how cutting off parts and service availability is going to make it LESS likely that people will screw around trying to hack them back together). But the rest of the car is just a car, same as all the other cars out there. It's not made of unicorn dust.

Someone up thread made a very trenchant observation--if ANY company but Tesla were doing this, people here would be up in arms. If a GM dealer told its customer, sorry, you can't work on your own car, what would people say about the evils of NADA?

 

[bonnie]

It seems to me the sticking point here is that Tesla wants to have final say on the safety and drivability; and may confiscate the veicle if it is not up to Tesla's standards.
In some(most?) states, the safety of a vehicle and therefore road-worthiness is determined by a state inspection facility, and NOT the manufacturer. My BRADN NEW Tesla fresh off the truck needed to be inspected by my state before I could drive it/register it.
I agree with Tesla's liability waiver, but I think they are taking it too far by insisting they have the final say - I say let the state safety inspector worry about it, or reword the document to push it into the state registration officials court, and then sell parts/service!

I can't find any place where Tesla says this. Can you point me to a direct quote (other than the guy who bought the salvage vehicle)? It appears they didn't say that. My guess is the guy was just trying to drum up public support for his side of the story.

In fact, the only thing I can find shows Tesla says just the opposite (Think Twice Before Buying a Salvaged Tesla Model S - TESLARATI.com ).

Directly from Simon Sproule, Tesla's VP of Communications:

Regardless of whether or not the car passed inspection, Mr. Rutman would have been free to decide where to conduct any additional repairs and to leave with his vehicle. There was never any threat to take away his vehicle at the inspection or any time thereafter and there is nothing in the authorization form that states or implies that we would do so.

 

[JST]

I can't find any place where Tesla says this. Can you point me to a direct quote (other than the guy who bought the salvage vehicle)? It appears they didn't say that. My guess is the guy was just trying to drum up public support for his side of the story.

In fact, the only thing I can find shows Tesla says just the opposite (Think Twice Before Buying a Salvaged Tesla Model S - TESLARATI.com ).

Directly from Simon Sproule, Tesla's VP of Communications:

"Confiscate the vehicle" may be taking it too far, but the idea that he is "free to take" the car is cold comfort if the company declines to activate it.