Mark Z
Active Member
It could be Tesla Motors' concern.
Simply put, just as they don't want their parts to make non-approved cars: http://cafeelectric.com/stretchla/
For whatever reason, they might not want their parts to power a home.
Last edited:
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Simply put, just as they don't want their parts to make non-approved cars: http://cafeelectric.com/stretchla/
For whatever reason, they might not want their parts to power a home.
green1
Active Member
Then they should fix their pricing. If they can't sell the item at the price they list for it, they should list a different price.
Came here to say this... One word (Two words?) ladies: PowerWall
It might be cutting edge technology and an amazing turn of the century "thing", but Tesla is still a business; new and feeling their way around the market. Doesn't make it right, but I see their side. I like the "right to repair" law angle.
Edit: I truly hope you get ahold of a pack, because I want to go off grid with a salvage pack as well, been snooping around for one, so your cause is a "righteous one" in my eyes!
I would almost agree with that, if Tesla Energy products were actually available... but they aren't selling those either, so it's moot.
And most importantly this:
I don't think that can be emphasized enough.
...and now, this thread begins to get interesting for certain others.
To try to compare apples to apples, as wk has demonstrated, hanging a 85kWh pack on the wall also necessitates a long series of 8048 Outbacks, and a smidgen of other hardware. Does a set of (currently unavailable) PowerWalls need them also? The gross numbers certainly can shake out a lot differently from what Mark's data show.
green1
Active Member
My understanding of the powerwall product is that no inverter is included, however I'm sure there are some electronics in there that the MS pack does not have. There also does not yet appear to be any such thing as a "currently available" powerwall product....and now, this thread begins to get interesting for certain others.
To try to compare apples to apples, as wk has demonstrated, hanging a 85kWh pack on the wall also necessitates a long series of 8048 Outbacks, and a smidgen of other hardware. Does a set of (currently unavailable) PowerWalls need them also? The gross numbers certainly can shake out a lot differently from what Mark's data show.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
Nissan does exactly the same for the Leaf replacement pack (they will not allow you to keep the old pack). Let's not treat this as if Tesla is some special case.
http://insideevs.com/breaking-nissan-prices-leaf-battery-replacement-5499-new-packs-heat-durable/
- - - Updated - - -
That's your opinion, but in running their business there are plenty of reasons to list a pricing that is lower than costs. Again, Nissan does that with their replacement pack because they wanted owners to have peace of mind and they figured the amount of people replacing packs will be low, so they can easily eat any losses. In this rare case where the owner wanted to keep the old battery, that may seem disadvantageous, but in the more common case where people just want a replacement pack, it is better for the consumer.
Last edited:
I agree, and I believe Tesla will figure that out without the government getting involved.
Let's be honest, I've heard and experienced many more extenuating cases in which Tesla has provided exceptional levels of goodwill (above and beyond normal expectations) than I've heard of the opposite. No offense to wk, as I have immense respect for him and what he has and will do, but wk is far from a normal case and one which Tesla may have some justified reasons for being cautious. I'm interested to see how it plays out, but am not about to start rooting against TM anytime soon.
...and now, this thread begins to get interesting for certain others.
To try to compare apples to apples, as wk has demonstrated, hanging a 85kWh pack on the wall also necessitates a long series of 8048 Outbacks, and a smidgen of other hardware. Does a set of (currently unavailable) PowerWalls need them also? The gross numbers certainly can shake out a lot differently from what Mark's data show.
My setup uses the Outback inverters because no available 240/120V split phase single phase inverter that accept HVDC input support off-grid/battery fed use, just grid tie. I think that is changing soon, but hasn't yet with anything available to consumers.
The Powerwall needs a HVDC input inverter to be useful. It won't even work with the Outback units I have. As far as I know the inverter that the the Powerwall would need to work off grid doesn't exist yet (not available for purchase anyway). But long story short, yes it will also need one or more inverters, so the cost differences are certainly not as skewed as you think.
- - - Updated - - -
I don't think they should be able to have it both ways.
If they want to artificially make the pack price look lower, fine. But in the rare case that someone doesn't want to turn in their pack, they should eat whatever difference as an expense for listing the wrong price... not tell the customer after the fact that they *must* sell them their old pack.
If they want people to turn in their packs, list the pack price appropriately and give a fair core value. If the pack was say, $35,000 and the core refund was $12,500, I think that'd be reasonable. Wouldn't work for me, but at least it wouldn't be shady.
Electric700
Active Member
Wk057, if you haven't done so, consider contacting [email protected] to ask about keeping your pack. You could escalate your request too.
They are probably making some money at $22,500 for a pack. But they would make more selling complete cars and likely need all the packs they can get to sell new cars.
The want to get a "realistic" price out there so people aren't too worried in case they have a real need due to degradation, but don't want to sell them to just anyone for any project. Tesla needs them to sell cars.
Clearly the screwed up by quoting something and then changing their mind. This is ugly.
If keeping them for replacement use only is their goal, they should price them higher with a much higher core charge. $45k with a $22.5k core. Even if they just trash the core.
The want to get a "realistic" price out there so people aren't too worried in case they have a real need due to degradation, but don't want to sell them to just anyone for any project. Tesla needs them to sell cars.
Clearly the screwed up by quoting something and then changing their mind. This is ugly.
If keeping them for replacement use only is their goal, they should price them higher with a much higher core charge. $45k with a $22.5k core. Even if they just trash the core.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
If Tesla sells you a pack knowing it is not being used in a Model S then it is "reasonably foreseeable that there is a risk of harm". That's the test for negligence. It doesn't take a "stretch of the imagination" to impose liability on those facts. It only takes applying the facts to the law. Plus, let's say your house burns down from the pack. You have given your insurer the right of subrogation against Tesla (or any wrongdoer it sees fit to pursue that is not a named or unnamed insured). That means your insurer will sue in your name to recover the funds it expended to rebuild your home and replace your contents and you have no say in the matter. And I can guarantee that would happen (in my personal opinion).
Again, this is wrong. Nissan does exactly the same thing as Tesla. But there's outcry over at the Nissan forums. It seems to me there's a sense of entitlement felt by a portion of Tesla owners who refuse to see the logic in Tesla conducting business in this manner.
The government is going to force Tesla to sell it to him? Great. I'm going to have the government force First Alert to sell me the radioactive material "americium" it uses in the smoke detectors I own. I want some for my "project".
A simple apology is owed but it's not "ugly". So he can't get this pack for his project. Big deal. It's not life or death. Selling it to him could be. But not selling it to him couldn't be.
Last edited:
green1
Active Member
Right to repair laws DO apply to cars, the DON'T apply to smoke detectors. Additionally, radioactive materials are controlled substances subject to much regulation. Batteries are not.
Canuck
Well-Known Member
He has the right to repair his car. That is not the issue. That's being used as a ruse I used americium also as a ruse.
GasDoc
Member
When a tow driver, using improper technique, creased the rim on my 60kwh battery in May 2013, I seem to remember the quote showing it was a $30,000 part. This pushed the damage estimate of my front end repairs into total loss territory.
That's nonsense. If the law could be applied that simple, no store could batteries in general. Or how about knifes or hammers, or chain saws. A simple liability waiver would make the deal safe for Tesla if that would be one of their worries. Liability isn't the issue why Tesla doesn't want to sell batteries separate. They want to sell cars, not battery packs. Makes sense.
