Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Model S' started by princeofhouse, May 10, 2018.
Has Tesla gone too far?
I clearly think that Tesla went too far here. Yes they had the right to disable supercharging, but should not have done that without informing the owner.
One thing seems strange. If the damage was so minor that the owner was able to repair it himself easily, why was it declared a total loss and given a salvage title to begin with?
Ok to disable but WITH warning.
Bought a salvage car. Tesla is clear about not supporting salvage vehicles. Owner should have done due diligence. Imagine if there was something wrong with the battery system, a high power source (supercharger) could cause serious injury. Then guess who'd be suing Tesla for their battery lighting on fire
The seller should have notified you that this was an unsupported salvage car.
Tesla doesn't support salvage cars. No Supercharging or warranty.
Your beef should be with the seller.
watch the video.
1. it was known. they purchased and repaired it.
2. tesla told them they had valid warranty
3. the car could supercharge and had full functionality until upon the warranty work without notice they changed that.
He thought he purchased a damaged vehicle (door and fender bender).
He wasn't told it was a salvage vehicle.
The seller screwed him.
He can pay Tesla to get it "recertified" and if the damage is really only the fender and door then it should be fairly easy. However, I suspect that it was a salvage car because of more extensive damage (frame, battery, drive train, etc.) that was not disclosed to him by the seller.
So everyone knows that Tesla doesn't support salvage vehicles, including this guy when he bought the car. He wanted work done and thought that he had a hidden gem with getting a car with warranty and supercharger support.
But it turns out it had none of that. So he got exactly what he first expected when he bought the car. Tesla was wrong to tell him it had a warranty when it didn't and to not have a better system to identify salvage cars.
He definitely should have been given warning about an immediate cessation of his supercharging privileges.
I am a frequent viewer of the channel and usually find the videos entertaining, however this video title is misleading/clickbait. The car is not disabled. It just can't supercharge. Big difference.
Tesla didn't maliciously disable the car. They just added the car to the unsupported list when the owner brought the car in (which the owner obviously should not have done).
I agree Tesla should have given them a heads up about removing Supercharging, but the owner has to bear some responsibility here. They knowingly bought a salvage car and knew (or should have known) that they cannot Supercharge.
was it a salvage title? that wasn't clear in the video, just said it was bought an an action... or is that implied... seems like a simple inspection by tesla could determine if everything is ok in the high powered electrical system for charging etc. $10k is absurd unless things need to be replaced, like the entire battery pack.
on a separate note, can the owner use a chademo adapter?
@VikH cut off your leg, you can still hop about.. still would use term "disabled"
they crippled one of the primary features of the car with terrible timing. so the title is valid
The loss of supercharging caused a delay so severe they had no choice but to find another vehicle and have that one towed 100 miles to a friends house.
No one is suggesting Tesla did anything maliciously, merely that they failed to communicate this to the owner.
Meh, not buying it. I know some Tesla owners that rarely Supercharge. If you do not travel long distance by car, it's not a primary feature.
They didn't cripple the car. The car functions perfectly with charging off of their HPWC at home and not exceeding the 200 mi range.
This is the part I didn't catch from Rich's reading of the letter. Was it a salvage title or not... But, as is many times the case, bad comms by Tesla. <sigh>
Tesla should have shown some class & empathy and turned SuperCharging back on until they got home.
So, as with most situations, I think that there's a little more to the story that we aren't being told about. Just seems like something is missing.
But, I don't think that Tesla took anything away, they just stopped providing things for a car that they believe was viable. Supercharging costs Tesla money. The telemetry system in the vehicle costs Tesla money for the cellular connection. It sounded like all they did was turned off the services.
A car with a door and panel problem doesn't generally get salvaged. Maybe it was a water logged vehicle as well. Something caused it to get a salvage title. And that generally means that it costs more to fix than the vehicle is worth.
Is the car useless? No, it sounds as if it is a perfectly fine car. It would be nice if there was someway to enable the telemetry by paying for it, and to switch to a pay per use Supercharger solution.
But I still think there's something here that's missing.
Great point. I strongly disagree with the term disabled. If all charging was turned off then you could call it disabled. Only supercharging? Nah.
I would also ask when he found out that the car did not have a warranty that it would have been even more important to double check whether it should have supercharging. I would say that there is even a chance that Tesla told him at this time that the car was unsupported which means no warranty and no supercharging.
Of course he would not want to mention it and hope that they don't notice, but then you run the risk of this happening.
Despite all that, a phone call or message on the screen that supercharging was about to be turned off was warranted.
I want to be able to buy a 1st, 2nd, or 3rd owner car without being Sherlock Holmes of the car world. I should just be able to plug in my TeslaSpy dongle and check the battery health, have someone check the alignment and look for major frame damage and call it good. I shouldn't have to wonder if Tesla will pull the plug on me two months later.
When I bought my first used Leaf I took it to the Nissan dealership down the road and tested an L2 and a Chademo Charge session. I bought it from a used car dealer and drove it 200+ miles to my house. I had no fear that Nissan would pull a fast one one me.
If I do the same with a used Tesla how do I know that I wont find out a week later or a month later that the supercharger test I did on the day I bought it wasn't valid?
Sure if the title says Salvage in big bold letters I know not to buy. But what if the title doesn't say salvage but it turns out to be marked salvage in some database and Tesla won't budge for less than 5 figures to re-certify? I sure don't trust Tesla comms enough to just call the 800# and believe the status they tell me. We know they can cut off Supercharging later after the sale so I can't use empirical testing at the time of purchase.
Except if there was a problem with the HV system then who do you think would have been sued if the car caught fire while supercharging? You guessed it, Tesla...
Yes the communication should have been better but there is blame to go around here...
In this case he should have been informed that it was a salvage car. If he wasn't informed, the seller is running a scam. He doesn't say if he knew it was a salvage car or not so we don't know if he just ignored the salvage car part or if he was scammed.
If you buy a salvage car, you have to expect big problems.
If you buy a salvage vehicle and don't know it, you have much bigger issues than worrying about supercharging.
That'll just be one small thing to be concerned about.