Uncle Paul
Well-Known Member
Maybe there is a reason that branded title vehicles have lower resale prices.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Do you think a company could have made a module to reactivate the superchargers?
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
On older systems anyway the various well known (and less well known) Tesla hackers can re-enable it... dunno if that's true for the newer cars/computers or not but you could always ask one of em.
And i agree with that sentiment. It feels a bit creepy for Tesla to reach into your car uninvited and change something. But frankly welcome to the 21st century, where the software on your device is owned and altered at will regardless of your likes or dislikes. However as I’ve said, this comes down to Tesla showing more respect about how they do this, not if they are legally entitled to.
You're not comprehending what I've written. I don't care about supercharging. I care completely about Tesla removing a feature from my car, OTA, without my permission. There is no comparison to iphone or other licensed software. Apple does not give certain owners in the same region different software updates that doesn't allow texting just because those certain owners bought their phone 2nd hand. Tesla should lock out their supercharging on their end, not by affecting MY car. The precedence is alarming because they can change my specific car at their whim. They can make up new rules and push a change to my car without my knowledge or acceptance, hence 3rd party DC charging. They just made up that rule in October as per the text I posted. My car should be grandfathered in if common law has any affect here. They cannot make up new rules and change my car again. I've read 3rd party charging seems to work with the chademo adapter but everyone is at the whim of an unpredictable software push to their specific car that can change that at any moment.
Finally, most of you miss the point that you or Tesla do not register my car in the state I live in. You and Tesla are in no position to certify compliance of my car to state requirements. Tesla has certified their new cars to the state when they sell it new. At that point their obligation is complete aside from things like recalls. My car went through 3 required state inspections and the state has certified it compliant.
Fully agree. If it was just SC, then I think it would be difficult to argue, but all dc removal should be illegal.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
If it's a software feature, especially one related to supercharging, they don't need your permission
Except, there absolutely is.
Apple, and Microsoft, and Google, and all the big tech companies have removed things from licensed software without the permission of the person with the license.
It's part of the fact you do not own the software and they can change it if they wish
You've yet to explain any difference of any kind legally between:
Car SW is updated to prevent use of superchargers by that specific car
and
Supercharger back end is updated to prevent use of superchargers by that specific car.
Disabling it car side is vastly simpler, and need not worry about if a given supercharger ever has a communication issue- the car plugs in an immediately informs the system if it's allowed to charge or not- no need to phone home to "check"
Well, no, they can't change it "at their whim"
They couldn't for example just switch off one of the motors on a dual motor car without reason.
The policy whereby they disable supercharging is available in writing at Tesla.com and has been public knowledge for quite some time.
If you bought a salvage car and were unaware of it that's your fault for not doing any research first.
You mean the thing the one guy in the thread who has supercharging turned off and actually got a chademo adapter and tried it found still worked just fine?
Are you still getting mad about a problem you only imagine you have but haven't actually tested? (and the one guy who did found out it works)
No, they didn't.
The policy has been around a lot longer than October (and you can find plenty of online references to it much earlier than that)- what you posted was a newer version of the doc, but the policy IN the doc is older than that (R3 in the doc title points out this fact)
Those words do not mean what you think they mean.
You didn't buy the car from Tesla, and they've listed salvage title vehicles as unsupported for YEARS before you bought one- they have no obligation to you at all.
If you mean make software changes- they certainly can- since they, not you, own the software.
There's limits to what they can change of course as I mentioned. Disabling use of their own SC network would be a totally legal example for them.
Have you? Because earlier in this same post it sounded like you hadn't since you cited 3rd party charging being removed as an issue.
That's great.
Feel free to ask the state to provide you some chargers.
Tesla certainly has no obligation to.
If you're shilling for Tesla please let the group know. Writing that I should ask the state to provide me with chargers when I never suggested it shows your contempt for people that have a branded title vehicle and your attempt at slanted persuasion. Your rants are full of contradictions and I'm not going to play that game. I hope the group stays focused on the ability to still 3rd party charge even though Tesla has only recently wrote they don't allow it and it's not in their terms and conditions... Privacy & Legal | Tesla
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Like you're apparently shilling for TSLAQ?
Seriously dude- everything I've told you are basic facts and law.
If you wanna be mad at facts, you do do. No need to invent conspiracies or personally attack people for proving you factually wrong over and over.
If you want to stop being told you're wrong, stop posting wrong things. It's pretty simple.
You mean like you claimed in your last post you were aware worked just fine for the other guy in the thread who tried it with a salvage title car that's locked out of supercharging?
Seems that ability remains just fine.
So to sum up:
Tesla remote updates the software they own to remove the ability to use superchargers Tesla also owns from salvage cars-all of which is completely in line with their published policy that's been around for a good while now.
And the one guy who actually tested 3rd party charging after this happened to him found it still worked so that doesn't appear to have been disabled at all.
But you're still mad about... something....
Last edited:
ElectricIAC
Good-Natured Rascal
Elitism is ugly. Can we remember why many people buy a Tesla? Sustainability?
Then act like it.
Rebuilding a car is an active act of re-use over refuse and should be celebrated; not looked down upon.
Then act like it.
Rebuilding a car is an active act of re-use over refuse and should be celebrated; not looked down upon.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
Nobody is "looking down" on a rebuilt car.
I could literally not care less if someones car is rebuilt or not (other than if I'm looking at buying the car in question).
We're pointing out Tesla has no legal responsibility to support them, or allow them to connect to their superchargers.
And tells you they don't support or allow supercharging for such cars in writing on their website.
And that due to how SW licensing works is free to push changes to the software they also own- just as apple, microsoft, google, and many others do...even if that licensed software is running on HW you own.
No-one is looking down on someone doing a rebuild (certainly there has been no hint of that in this thread that I can find). The argument here boils down to two factual things:
-- Do Tesla have the legal right to deny salvage cars SC access?
-- Do Tesla have the legal right to implement this via changes to the state of the software stored in the vehicle?
I, and others, have said "yes" to both these. Note that this is simply stating that they have the legal right, and not stating a position on the ethics around this legal right. Also note that this is not an opinion argument; you may feel Tesla should not have a certain right, but, as has been noted in this thread a number of times, they very clearly do have the rights at this time.
The rest comes down to the ethics of this, and pretty much all such arguments are heavily subjective. And like all subjective arguments, there is no objective answer, and confirmation bias quickly leaks in. The OP wants access to SCs, and so to him Teslas restrictions seem offensive and ridiculous. To others, they seem reasonable to protect both the owners of salvage cars (and Superchargers) from harm and the damage to the public reputation of Tesla should issues arise.
As for the method by which this is achieved, I fail to see what difference it makes. Would the OP have been ok had Tesla disabled SCing by updating the software in the Superchargers instead? Sure, you might think it "creepy" that Tesla did it by reaching into the car, but so what? The end result is the same, and in this case you have to judge the end, not the means.
1. There's no argument on supercharging. It's about 3rd party charging. Tesla has written docs that they will disable it. Whether or not it still works is moot. If they can cut supercharging via a push to a particular car they can do the same tomorrow to 3rd party charging. Salvage car owners have always known Tesla will not allow supercharging when they bought their cars. What they didn't know is they disallow it via a push to their car's software.
2. Tesla does not have a right to create a new legal term and condition such that 3rd party charging is now disabled and push that to cars.
3..Tesla should not have the ability to individually control an individual owner's car via software push. They can own the software but they can't control features remotely at their discretion. I have yet to see someone's iphone texting disabled by apple because they bought their phone from someone else. All iphone IOS is the same on everyone's phone, regionally at least, not individually.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
There certainly has been quite a bit of it upthread.
Which according to the only guy in the thread with a salvage car who actually tested it- still works.
You appear to again be using a legal word you don't understand.
If they are actually disabling it or not is the very opposite of moot- in fact it appears to be the only thing you've still got left to argue about so pretty clearly it matters if they actually do it or not.
And again the only evidence in the thread we have from an actual salvage owner who tested is- they did not disable it even after disabling supercharging.
Tesla can SAY anything it wants in internal service docs, what they actually do is what matters legally.
Technically? Sure.
They can do a LOT of things technically.
When they actually do one that might not be legal, let us know.
Hasn't appeared to have happened so far.
Have they?
Because just a few pages ago we have a salvage title car owner who was surprised by it- and now is upset it'll hurt his ability to resell the salvage title car.
So apparently he did not "always know" this happens.
Once again you appear to be painting with an overbroad brush.
You've yet to explain why that matters.
Functionally turning off SC on the car, or the back end, has exactly the same effect.
In fact arguably turning it off at the car has less effect because at least on older cars it means a hacker can turn it back on... which would be impossible if they did it on the SC back end instead.
Again they don't appear to have actually done so.
Of course they can. It's THEIR software, not yours.
Again specific examples of Microsoft, Apple, Google, and others all doing this in the past have been provided to you, with links to stories about them.
You apparently couldn't be bothered to read yet more examples of you being proven wrong.
1. As others have noted, 3rd party is still undetermined (though appears to work). And again, why is the technical method by which they do this an issue? Other than "I don't like it" ?
2. As others have noted, they didn't do this, the policy has been in place some time. Do you have evidence your car was titled before they placed the salvage SC policy in place?
3. Again, you are expressing an opinion, and are either arguing that they should not be allowed to do any software update, or only ones you like. And yes, Apple do all sorts of updates that effect phones differently, including disabling various or all phone functions when they are repaired by unauthorized 3rd parties.
1. Because it's sets the precedence that they can at their discretion change any owners car - like they see you drive too fast so they slow your car down. Is this really something I need to explain?
2. Yes I do. And the fact that it COULD have been titled before they made up a new requirement makes your point moot. Why are you shilling for Tesla on this?
3. Show me a person's iphone that has a removed software feature that is of the same software version of an iphone that HAS that software feature.
Knightshade
Well-Known Member
yes- because the one thing they have actually changed they're entirely within their legal rights to do.
Citing imaginary things they COULD do, but haven't, is wasting everyones time on nonsense TSLAQ type FUD.
Why would the "version" of the SW matter?
The question is- can the owner of the software remove something from it without permission of the device owner?
The answer is yes- and you've been given examples of Apple, MS, Google, and others all doing it.
Every time one of your claims is debunked with facts and sourced examples you move the goalposts.
Similar threads
