Service Manual Subscriptions

[JST]

Nevermind. For those who haven't made up your mind, read the judgment above and the actual text of the MA law which points at the same definitions.

I support the position that the information should be available, but the EU RtR regulations are likely to be more successful in driving change vs. MA law., IMO.

I think Tesla has about 18-24 months before we'll see the repair situation change.

Good luck and Happy New Year!

As a matter of legal interpretation, I think you are correct, FlasherZ--if the question were ever litigated, I suspect Tesla would be on firm footing arguing that the law doesn't apply to them.

At the same time, it could very well be that Tesla has decided that it's not worth getting into a dispute about. After all, arguing that this law does not apply to direct sales could supply ammunition to those arguing that the dealer model has pro-consumer benefits.

And as others have said, as a practical matter, the "right to repair" information is basically useless given the other restrictions that Tesla has put on the supply chain, so it doesn't matter much one way or the other.

I think the 18-24 month timeframe is pretty optimistic. At some point, Tesla likely will have to reexamine how it deals with third party repair shops, especially as more and more vehicles age out of warranty. But I don't see that happening soon.

 

[Ingineer]

Oh, and for those that don't yet know: Once most Model S cars has been in an accident, insurers will usually "total" these cars for otherwise repairable damage. This seems to be because they only allow repairs by a select few body shops (read: intentional monopoly). Then, these cars go to auction and people buy them, but find they cannot buy parts because Tesla has two roadblocks; one is not selling certain parts to ANY owner (such as certain body parts), and secondly; blacklisting salvage cars so no parts whatsoever can be obtained, even something as benign such as coolant fluid.

If you want any parts for your car, Tesla asks for the VIN, and will only sell to an owner is the parts are not "special" (in their opinion) and providing the car has not been totaled by your insurance company.

- - - Updated - - -

Ingineer-agree with you on all points there. I have my doubts that they can scale to Model 3 under these policies.

Definitely. They need to change their policies ASAP. Otherwise it's going to greatly jeopardize their mission.

 

[JST]

Definitely. They need to change their policies ASAP. Otherwise it's going to greatly jeopardize their mission.

Will it? That's an interesting question. Keeping a tight grip on access to parts and repair information will certainly piss off a small percentage of the more DIY owners, and it will likely also keep repair costs higher than they otherwise would be.

That said, what percentage of people would actually refuse to buy a car just because they would have to have the car serviced at a factory store? My guess is that a large chunk of the people who buy luxury cars end up going to the dealer for service even after warranty, either because of simple inertia or out of a perception (rightly or wrongly) that doing so is better. Finding a quality shop to work on your car can be a PITA, even where service info is readily available.

I said above that Tesla is going to have to reexamine the way it deals with 3rd party shops, but the more I think about it, the less I am sure that is correct. They may well perceive a distinct advantage in keeping control of their repair chain, even for used cars.

 

[jaguar36]

Is there anything we could do that would have a reasonable chance of convincing Tesla to change their policies, both with regards to the Service manual, the diagonostic software, and the parts availability.

I think a lawsuit, in MA or the EU would be the most effective. Even if as FlasherZ says legally Tesla is in the right, I think the negative publicity of a lawsuit would be enough to force them to change their policies. However not only would it be expensive, but I think the negative publicity would be something we would all rather not happen.

Perhaps just contacting Tesla directly? Is there a good way to do that?

- - - Updated - - -

Will it? That's an interesting question. Keeping a tight grip on access to parts and repair information will certainly piss off a small percentage of the more DIY owners, and it will likely also keep repair costs higher than they otherwise would be.

That said, what percentage of people would actually refuse to buy a car just because they would have to have the car serviced at a factory store? My guess is that a large chunk of the people who buy luxury cars end up going to the dealer for service even after warranty, either because of simple inertia or out of a perception (rightly or wrongly) that doing so is better. Finding a quality shop to work on your car can be a PITA, even where service info is readily available.

I said above that Tesla is going to have to reexamine the way it deals with 3rd party shops, but the more I think about it, the less I am sure that is correct. They may well perceive a distinct advantage in keeping control of their repair chain, even for used cars.

Its going to hurt Tesla, particularly while their service locations are rather sparse. While alot of people take their car to the dealer, those dealers tend to be pretty close by. There are also a ton of indy shops that specialize in MB/BMW/Lexus, so there is a large population not taking their cars to the dealer.

The increase in insurance costs and the difficulty of getting insurance will be a larger driver to new car sales I suspect though.

End of the day the question will be if it hurts sales enough for Tesla to care. At this point its certainly not. In two years, when there are a significant number of out of warranty Model Ss, maybe. Even then though it won't be *that* many cars. 5-10 years down the road, then yes its certainly going to be a big deal.

 

[wk057]

Yes, it's a firmware "redeploy", there is no need to download anything from Tesla servers and everything needed is already present on the local systems. This is also an important distinction for salvage cars for which Tesla has blacklisted.

Slight OT, but I've determined that if the cars are still connected to Tesla after they have blacklisted them, they will actively go in and change the configuration, such as removing supercharging. Ethically I believe this crosses a line. Tesla should not go into your car and alter the configuration without your permission. If they want to tell the supercharger to deny access to particular cars, that's their business (though is also open for debate), but actively disabling something in a car where those features have been bought and paid for is wrong in my book. In one case I looked at on a 60kWh car, the car was originally sold w/o supercharging, then the customer upgraded to supercharging and specifically paid Tesla for it, so the configuration was changed to permit access. Then, the car was salvaged and Tesla actively went in and removed supercharging. This is clearly wrong in my book.

I also believe is would be "right" to make service info available to (at least) qualified people. If they are worried about liability due to high-voltage danger, they could require a test for those that want access. I would be fine with this, but to blanket deny everyone is a mistake and will only serve to harm the brand long-term. Their stance on after-accident cars is also going to damage the brand by increasing cost to insure, and in fact, many insurers have already effectively declined to insure the Model S entirely. This will effectively devalue the cars soon and reduce the resale value. This is a shame, as presently the Model S holds it's value well, and is a selling point.

Tesla; if you are reading this, please consider changing your policies ASAP. It's only going to hurt if you don't! I'll be happy to talk to anyone at Tesla about this, feel free to contact me.

I'd be pretty tempted to help such folks, where Tesla modified the configuration without permission, get that configuration back to where it was, especially on an 70,85,90 (and maybe a 60 where it can be proven supercharging was previously paid for). Pretty sure that someone could easily bring a case against Tesla for this. On the flip side, I'm pretty sure Tesla couldn't bring a case against an owner who fixed their configuration after Tesla remotely altered it. In exchange for my assistance I think I'd want to see the Tesla-powered SIM card physically destroyed.

70, 85, and 90 kWh cars were all sold with supercharging enabled. There should never be one in the wild that doesn't have it enabled. That's obvious fraud if it is the case, IMO. Unless someone can find some license agreement that I'm unaware of related to supercharging.

 

[lolachampcar]

Does Tesla not have liability when it comes to allowing a "salvage" level damaged car to SuperCharge? Can the SuperCharger "deny" access to a car?

I ask these questions as I can actually see a justifiable reason for Tesla to go in and alter the configuration of a vehicle provided the vehicle is the source of the authentication required for SuperCharging.

As for the rest of the discussion regarding Tesla's policies, I've stated from the very beginning (early 2013) that applying a Valley software company my way or the highway mentality to a car company was going to cause trouble.

 

[Mike K]

Does Tesla not have liability when it comes to allowing a "salvage" level damaged car to SuperCharge? Can the SuperCharger "deny" access to a car?

I ask these questions as I can actually see a justifiable reason for Tesla to go in and alter the configuration of a vehicle provided the vehicle is the source of the authentication required for SuperCharging.

I agree. If the car is the source of authentication then I don't have an issue with it. Actually, I don't really have an issue with it either way and I owned a salvage car. It seems like semantics to me. Either way the car can't access the supercharger network so who cares if they go in and flip a switch to disable an option that you wouldn't otherwise be able to use anyhow?

There's good reason for disabling supercharging though. In my instance, I took delivery of the car with non-working air conditioning. I had no clue that the AC also cooled the battery and apparently neither did the car as it never tossed up any kind of warning for the AC system not working which is a bit disconcerting. It even got to the point on a hot day where it said it was lowering cabin cooling effectiveness so it could cool the battery and knowing full well it was trying to use the AC to cool the battery it didn't give me any kind of warning that it was failing to do so.

Now you throw that car on a supercharger, where it really needs the AC cooling abilities and combine that with the fact the car apparently doesn't know when it's cooling system is failing to cool the battery and you're potentially in for a world of hurt. I'm sure the battery would simply stop charging if it got too hot however it's better to disable this function on these cars rather than risk damaging the car further or the charger itself. Likewise, I don't think they have any obligation to support these cars as far as the supercharger network goes.

What I do take issue with is the complete lack of support for salvage cars. As far as I know, if you have a salvage BMW, BMW will still service the car. You just have to pay. They'll still sell you parts. You just have to pay for them. Tesla has a pretty firm "We won't touch it" policy. And that ultimately was what caused me to turn around and flip my salvage car. I had one key and thought to myself, how ridiculous would it be if I lose this key at the gym and suddenly I own a paperweight that Tesla won't program a key for? And that was a very real possibility.

The bottom line is many minor accidents are likely to salvage these cars because insurance companies don't want to drop 10k into a car to then find out it needs a 45k battery. It's almost always easier to write it off. So there are plenty of perfectly safe salvage cars out there and it's a pity they basically tell those people to pound sand.

 

[Ingineer]

So presently, the car's options file controls whether cars can supercharge. The SC protocol sends the VIN, so it would be easy for Tesla to block cars at the SC level, but as of now it's controlled by the car.

On a car without functioning AC or a compromised glycol loop, the pack will rise in temp and have a high delta-T during supercharging, so the BMS will lower the charge current decision and this will cause supercharging to taper much faster then usual, but the battery should not be harmed.

The only reason I can think that Tesla would have a valid reason for disabling SC'ing on a car would be a safety issue or some electromechanical problem with the charge port. Since HV safety and charge port health (temperature) are fully monitored by instrumentation, if there was excessive HV leakage current or excessive temperature, the car would fault and SC would not work. So what is their reason?

 

[Btr_ftw]

Yes, it's a firmware "redeploy", there is no need to download anything from Tesla servers and everything needed is already present on the local systems. This is also an important distinction for salvage cars for which Tesla has blacklisted.

This is what I'm gathering as well. I'm sure this is by design so rangers can fix cars in the field sans internet connectivity.

If you want any parts for your car, Tesla asks for the VIN, and will only sell to an owner is the parts are not "special" (in their opinion) and providing the car has not been totaled by your insurance company.

I'm going through this same thing.

I did a quick search for "restricted" in Tesla's parts section and there is alot of stuff there that they won't even sell you even if you have a perfectly working non salvage car. I'd LOVE to see what happens when someone out of warranty (which is coming soon) needs a drive unit, or dc-dc converter, touch screen etc...


I'm really scratching my chin here when I see a salvaged model S fetch 50k+ at an auction... I think to myself... "Do they know what they are up against???"

 

[JRP3]

A car just caught fire in Norway apparently while SCing. Don't know if it was salvage or not. http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/show...vements-2016?p=1301027&viewfull=1#post1301027

 

[qwk]

So presently, the car's options file controls whether cars can supercharge. The SC protocol sends the VIN, so it would be easy for Tesla to block cars at the SC level, but as of now it's controlled by the car.

On a car without functioning AC or a compromised glycol loop, the pack will rise in temp and have a high delta-T during supercharging, so the BMS will lower the charge current decision and this will cause supercharging to taper much faster then usual, but the battery should not be harmed.

The only reason I can think that Tesla would have a valid reason for disabling SC'ing on a car would be a safety issue or some electromechanical problem with the charge port. Since HV safety and charge port health (temperature) are fully monitored by instrumentation, if there was excessive HV leakage current or excessive temperature, the car would fault and SC would not work. So what is their reason?

Their reason is probably a thirst for more new car sales, and the fact that anything more than an easy repair gets engineering involved. The engineering man hours needed to get some of these salvage cars going is probably more than Tesla can handle.

 

[wk057]

Personally, I would consider having the supercharging option disabled on the 70, 85, or 90 kWh Model S itself to be a problem that needs to be corrected. If Tesla wants to block certain VINs at the supercharger, then so be it, but having it disabled on a car that came with it enabled as a standard option is obviously wrong.

Sure, Tesla can claim safety issues as a reason to those who don't know any better. But as Ingineer mentioned, all safety related things with the HV are monitored on both sides of the system (car and supercharger) and would fault (and not charge) if there were an issue. Even if the AC doesn't work in your car, you could still supercharge until the pack got too warm and it would just taper the power accordingly. I've supercharged a few times and never heard the AC compressor kick on, especially in colder weather. (OT, but all evidence I have suggests that the Model S battery cooling system is only good enough to slow the heat build up in the pack. It is in no way capable of maintaining a set pack temperature while supercharging, only slowing the temperature rise.)

The *only* thing I could see being a potential problem would be a physically damaged car-side charge port that physically damaged the supercharger connector. But, this could do so even if the car couldn't charge just by plugging in the cable, or would still be potentially caught by the safety systems due to increased resistance and/or temperature at the connector.

This is a case that is going to eventually come up in the courts if Tesla keeps with this operating strategy. As an owner, I've never received or seen any type of license agreement or contract relating to supercharging or use of the supercharger network. The only official thing I have is a line item on my MVPA and winder sticker that says "Supercharging Enabled." Tesla is not allowed to modify my vehicle's configuration after purchase, and specifically the "Supercharging Enabled" portion being car-side. So, what gives? Beyond that just marketing stuff like "free for life" and such.

Pretty sure what they're doing when they disable this option remotely without the owner's consent is illegal, and if I ever somehow ended up in the position of being on the receiving end of that particular crime I'd be pursuing it legally no questions asked. As far as I'm concerned it'd be no different than if Tesla came and stole my "Tesla Red Brake Calipers" or "White Alcantara Headliner".

 

[Lrz]

Seems you can register for a "General Access (Personal)" account, but only if you reside in Massachusetts.

FYI: "General Access (Personal)" subscription works from Norway (Europe). (Just tried an hour subscription with correct details for my region)

 

[Mike K]

Personally, I would consider having the supercharging option disabled on the 70, 85, or 90 kWh Model S itself to be a problem that needs to be corrected. If Tesla wants to block certain VINs at the supercharger, then so be it, but having it disabled on a car that came with it enabled as a standard option is obviously wrong.

Sure, Tesla can claim safety issues as a reason to those who don't know any better. But as Ingineer mentioned, all safety related things with the HV are monitored on both sides of the system (car and supercharger) and would fault (and not charge) if there were an issue. Even if the AC doesn't work in your car, you could still supercharge until the pack got too warm and it would just taper the power accordingly. I've supercharged a few times and never heard the AC compressor kick on, especially in colder weather. (OT, but all evidence I have suggests that the Model S battery cooling system is only good enough to slow the heat build up in the pack. It is in no way capable of maintaining a set pack temperature while supercharging, only slowing the temperature rise.)

The *only* thing I could see being a potential problem would be a physically damaged car-side charge port that physically damaged the supercharger connector. But, this could do so even if the car couldn't charge just by plugging in the cable, or would still be potentially caught by the safety systems due to increased resistance and/or temperature at the connector.

This is a case that is going to eventually come up in the courts if Tesla keeps with this operating strategy. As an owner, I've never received or seen any type of license agreement or contract relating to supercharging or use of the supercharger network. The only official thing I have is a line item on my MVPA and winder sticker that says "Supercharging Enabled." Tesla is not allowed to modify my vehicle's configuration after purchase, and specifically the "Supercharging Enabled" portion being car-side. So, what gives? Beyond that just marketing stuff like "free for life" and such.

Pretty sure what they're doing when they disable this option remotely without the owner's consent is illegal, and if I ever somehow ended up in the position of being on the receiving end of that particular crime I'd be pursuing it legally no questions asked. As far as I'm concerned it'd be no different than if Tesla came and stole my "Tesla Red Brake Calipers" or "White Alcantara Headliner".

We'll have to agree to disagree. From their perspective the car is no longer supported. That means 3G/ LTE radio, supercharging, ability to be repaired, etc all go poof on salvage cars. You can argue the legality of them disabling supercharging on the car side versus the supercharger side but you're just arguing semantics as either way the car will not be allowed to supercharge any longer. I think any parallel between them disabling this car side and them physically stealing options from your car is a bit silly.

- - - Updated - - -

Whoops, almost forgot why I came here tonight. I got access to the manual. I'm not entirely sure why they're making this so difficult to obtain. I mean, I understand charging for it and not just handing copies of it out on the street corner but as far as only offering it in MA because of legal obligations, that I don't get. There's nothing really proprietary here. I was really hoping to see some troubleshooting flow-charts but nothing. The manual is a glorified instruction manual for disassembly/ reassembly. Still interesting but you're not giving away the family secrets here.

For those wonder, the manual is easily downloaded. The technical service bulletins are all PDF. You can just click on them and save. The service manual itself opens up in a frame but has an option for a printer friendly version of each page which puts all the info on one scrolling page that you can then save. If you're on a Mac it will save the entire page, pictures and all. Windows might do the same.

Those not in MA, access with a Greendot Money Pack. Sign up with an MA billing address, fund the card and use the temporary card number you get on the Tesla site. All told it will take just a couple minutes.

If there's traffic detection that's shutting you down when you access too many pages too quickly, it's not working. I loaded/ saved maybe 60% of the manual and almost every Technical Service Bulletin with no issue. In fact, I only paid for an hour access and two hours later I'm still in the manual. Perhaps that's some sort of glitch. I'm going to go back and save what I didn't get the first time. I pretty much ignored all the dual motor stuff since I have an S85.

Biggest surprise I've seen so far: the motor for the panoramic roof is in the dashboard to the left of the steering wheel. That's a first for me.

 

[wk057]

We'll have to agree to disagree. From their perspective the car is no longer supported. That means 3G/ LTE radio, supercharging, ability to be repaired, etc all go poof on salvage cars. You can argue the legality of them disabling supercharging on the car side versus the supercharger side but you're just arguing semantics as either way the car will not be allowed to supercharge any longer. I think any parallel between them disabling this car side and them physically stealing options from your car is a bit silly.

They can disable 3G/LTE all they want. That's something they provide and pay for and can be done without ever touching the car. I'm free to replace their provided SIM and service with my own on a salvage car and pay for my own access.

Disabling supercharging on the car also disables CHAdeMO charging and any other DC fast charging. Again, while Tesla is free to tell their network of chargers that VIN xxxxx isn't allowed to supercharge, they're not allowed to remove paid options from my car without my consent. That's pretty black and white and certainly is equatable to physically removing other line item features that are in my MVPA. So if prior to Tesla screwing with the configuration remotely I could use a CHAdeMO station, and afterwards I can not, Tesla has stolen a feature that was paid for as part of the vehicle.

And the pano roof motors (yes, there are two) are not in the dashboard... not sure where you saw that. Maybe you mean the control module?

 

[Mike K]

Disabling supercharging on the car also disables CHAdeMO charging and any other DC fast charging. Again, while Tesla is free to tell their network of chargers that VIN xxxxx isn't allowed to supercharge, they're not allowed to remove paid options from my car without my consent. That's pretty black and white and certainly is equatable to physically removing other line item features that are in my MVPA. So if prior to Tesla screwing with the configuration remotely I could use a CHAdeMO station, and afterwards I can not, Tesla has stolen a feature that was paid for as part of the vehicle.

That's a fair point. I had a salvage car that was fixed well and roadworthy and I contemplated keeping it. The CHAdeMO adapter was something I was planning on buying, knowing I wouldn't have supercharger access. Finding out that that would not have been supported would have indeed upset me as like you noted, it's not related to Tesla's proprietary charging at all. If there's no way to make this change on the car without also disabling a completely unrelated service then I'm right there with you.

And the pano roof motors (yes, there are two) are not in the dashboard... not sure where you saw that. Maybe you mean the control module?

I'm looking at a very detailed diagram that directly contradicts you. Likewise, I just went outside and jammed my ear where the diagram shows it to be and then opened my roof. Indeed, the motor is in the dashboard. Anyone can go out to their car, stick their ear up against the lower dash, just under the wood trim to the left the of the steering wheel, open their pano roof and listen. You can very clearly hear the motor behind that panel and the service manual very specifically calls it a sunroof motor and shows it connected to a drive tube. I suspect they have a flexible drive running down the a-pillar with a worm gear at the end.

I'm not going to post the picture because that's a no-no I'm sure and I only saved the manual for my own information but this is a pretty easy one to verify. I don't blame you for not believing me though. It's a pretty odd location.

 

[lolachampcar]

Putting aside right and wrong for a minute......

I'm trying to think through what I would do in Tesla's shoes. The car is salvage. I'm not sure what that means as I've made parts and repair so expensive that the darn thing can be totaled for a tooth ache but, hey, I'm not taking any responsibility for that because, presumably, the customer has insurance so the insurance company is paying for everything. What I do care about is ANY Model S fire as that is a nail in my coffin. I do not care if I am disadvantaging the salvage after market as the car is salvage and not for the road. I'm going to do everything I can to keep that battery from being charged and thus keep it from catching fire. This will include reaching my paws into an asset I do not own and making a configuration change to keep the car from being fast charged by any DC charging device. I'm smart, want what I want and will do what I think is best without (as much) regard for what my customer or current owner of the salvage think.

Again, right and wrong aside, I can see why they are doing what they are doing. This includes making access to repair data as difficult as possible (to keep people like me from using salvage batteries for their home PV storage ).

 

[JST]

Putting aside right and wrong for a minute......

I'm trying to think through what I would do in Tesla's shoes. The car is salvage. I'm not sure what that means as I've made parts and repair so expensive that the darn thing can be totaled for a tooth ache but, hey, I'm not taking any responsibility for that because, presumably, the customer has insurance so the insurance company is paying for everything. What I do care about is ANY Model S fire as that is a nail in my coffin. I do not care if I am disadvantaging the salvage after market as the car is salvage and not for the road. I'm going to do everything I can to keep that battery from being charged and thus keep it from catching fire. This will include reaching my paws into an asset I do not own and making a configuration change to keep the car from being fast charged by any DC charging device. I'm smart, want what I want and will do what I think is best without (as much) regard for what my customer or current owner of the salvage think.

Again, right and wrong aside, I can see why they are doing what they are doing. This includes making access to repair data as difficult as possible (to keep people like me from using salvage batteries for their home PV storage ).

I was right there with you until the end, but it strikes me that one side effect of limiting repair info/access is that the batteries become *more* susceptible to tinkering.

After all, if you can't use the damn things to
power a car, what are you going to do with them?

Honestly, the best way for Tesla to do this would be to retain ownership of the battery and just lease it to you. That way they could simply take and recycle (or destroy) the pack from any salvage car. There are all sorts of ways this could be structured so that it wouldn't look like a traditional lease.

Alternately, they could just put requirement in the MVPA that you sell back the battery from any salvage car, though I am not sure that would be enforceable.

 

[lolachampcar]

JST,
I'm most certainly not defending the policies. I've been very vocal when it comes to criticism for what I see as a Silicon Valley Software House my way or the highway way of doing business. I was just trying to put myself in their shoes and verbalize the thought process.

I agree that there are much better, more customer centric, ways of doing this. Tesla is very customer focused when it comes to the big things with lots of visibility (direct sales model, Service Center warranty repair, etc.) but it is a completely different story when it comes to raw business issues with very little if any exposure. Wholesale trade offers to returning Model S customers always jumps out to me.

The stakes are so high with this one that I really do not see them budging.

I do have to give them credit for dramatically lowering parts costs to their repair shops. I'm getting a door replaced and the cost has dropped from $950 for the door shell two years ago to around $700 today. The shop told me the front bumper cover had dropped from around $1200 to around $300. That said, the monopoly Tesla has created with their repair center authorization scheme still makes a small dent door repair a $3500 event when the new door shell itself is around $700.

 

[Ingineer]

Putting aside right and wrong for a minute......

I'm trying to think through what I would do in Tesla's shoes. The car is salvage. I'm not sure what that means as I've made parts and repair so expensive that the darn thing can be totaled for a tooth ache but, hey, I'm not taking any responsibility for that because, presumably, the customer has insurance so the insurance company is paying for everything. What I do care about is ANY Model S fire as that is a nail in my coffin. I do not care if I am disadvantaging the salvage after market as the car is salvage and not for the road. I'm going to do everything I can to keep that battery from being charged and thus keep it from catching fire. This will include reaching my paws into an asset I do not own and making a configuration change to keep the car from being fast charged by any DC charging device. I'm smart, want what I want and will do what I think is best without (as much) regard for what my customer or current owner of the salvage think.

Again, right and wrong aside, I can see why they are doing what they are doing. This includes making access to repair data as difficult as possible (to keep people like me from using salvage batteries for their home PV storage ).

Also, without good service info, people will DEFINITELY still try to repair the cars, and doing it "in the dark" makes it even more likely it will be done poorly and result in a fire.

And with this policy effectively guaranteeing it will be almost impossible to insure a Tesla soon, then what? Several major insurers already either refuse to insure a Model S or price it so high that you will go elsewhere.