Teslas With Rebuilt Title - Supercharging Removal

[drtimhill]

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.

1. That's irrelevant. You can't argue that they can't do X because they might do Y in the future. And in fact that has not been your argument, it's been that they should not have cut off supercharging, not that they are setting a bad precedent.

2. I'm not shilling for Tesla, I'm just stating the legal position. How is that shilling?

3. As I noted, Apple many times disable or cripple features when unauthorized repairs/changes are made to their products.

You keep shifting the goal-posts. Yes, we get you don't like having SC cut off, but Tesla are within their rights to do this, even if you don't like it. You haven't been robbed, or any of the other claims you have made. I'm sorry you are in this situation, as I've said several times it would be better if Tesla had a fee-based way you could have the car certified as safe, but they don't.

 

[BritneySpears]

1. My point was they cut supercharging via a change to my car and the underlying implications of a manuf making OTA changes to a car. It's arguable that the end result is the same so it's not important but I never complained that I wanted my sc back. I've always been fully aware of their legal statement that sc is turned off on salvage cars. If you nit pick enough you can find a way to show I'm stating the world is flat.

2. "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?" That's not a legal position. You asked if the 3rd party policy change occurred before my titling the car and I wrote yes, and that it doesn't even matter. It was not a publicly explicit term and condition change. In fact their legal statement currently makes no mention of it.

3. Apple does not, to my knowledge, OTA disable features to a specific phone at their discretion when they "detect" something. The example of 3rd party repairs causing an error is a software feature currently embedded in EVERY iphone so if something gets violated the switch is automatic via the current software in the phone.

 

[Knightshade]

1. My point was they cut supercharging via a change to my car

RIght.

Which they're 100% legally entitled to do- and which again many other companies have done to their own licensed SW at various times.

and the underlying implications of a manuf making OTA changes to a car.

Why is a car any different than a phone, or a computer, or any other piece of HW running licensed software?

Not why you "feel" it is- why, factually and legally, is it any different?

It's arguable that the end result is the same so it's not important

And yet you've complained about it like 10 times now.

Weird.

3. Apple does not, to my knowledge, OTA disable features to a specific phone at their discretion when they "detect" something.[

Then your knowledge is, again, inaccurate and incomplete.

See for example the secret phone throttling they pushed out that only throttled some phones under some conditions that they didn't publicly inform anyone of until it was discovered by a third party.

The example of 3rd party repairs causing an error is a software feature currently embedded in EVERY iphone so if something gets violated the switch is automatic via the current software in the phone.

So now you're moving the goalposts to software disables on the device are TOTES OK but ONLY if they're automatic and already laying in wait on the device?

 

[MP3Mike]

3. Apple does not, to my knowledge, OTA disable features to a specific phone at their discretion when they "detect" something. The example of 3rd party repairs causing an error is a software feature currently embedded in EVERY iphone so if something gets violated the switch is automatic via the current software in the phone.

So what if it was just like this. The car checks to see if it is on a totaled/salvage title list and if it finds itself listed on the database it disables Supercharging itself. At that point Tesla wouldn't be reaching in to your car to change anything, it is just a feature of the software.

 

[Fadiawesome]

why can Tesla disable 3rd party dc fast charging. that shouldn't be legal.

 

[Watts_Up]

why can Tesla disable 3rd party dc fast charging. that shouldn't be legal.

It would be nice if, in the US, Tesla was providing the use of CCS 2 chargers, like in Europe.

However when you said that "Tesla disable 3rd party dc fast charging" (I guess CCS 1),
this would imply that it was compatible, which is not impossible but is not proof either.

 

[Fadiawesome]

It would be nice if, in the US, Tesla was providing the use of CCS 2 chargers, like in Europe.

However when you said that "Tesla disable 3rd party dc fast charging" (I guess CCS 1),
this would imply that it was compatible, which is not impossible but is not proof either.

there still is CHAdeMO, I charge on CHAdeMO multiple times a week. CCS1, or 2 outside of the US, isn't the only option to dc fast charge. Chademo, while it sucks, still exists.

 

[drtimhill]

why can Tesla disable 3rd party dc fast charging. that shouldn't be legal.

No-one has actually determined that they have yet .. all we know is (a) they have disabled supercharging and (b) someone tried a Chademo and it worked, but they were not certain of the kW power draw.

 

[lowtoast]

My first test was 16kwh, I just assumed it was the charger slowing things down. Now I'm starting to suspect tesla. I tried two more chargers last night and got 18kwh on one and 22kwh on the other. I need someone else to test.

Since my first tests with chademo I have seen slightly faster speeds. Up to 30kwh. It's still not clear if tesla is slowing things down or if chademo chargers are just bad.

I'm definitely bitter tesla disabled supercharging. I wish they'd put some effort into identifying cars that actually represent a safety or publicity risk instead of blanket disabling everyone. No supercharging has a big impact on the usability of the car.

 

[Knightshade]

Since my first tests with chademo I have seen slightly faster speeds. Up to 30kwh. It's still not clear if tesla is slowing things down or if chademo chargers are just bad.

From the reading I've done it's the second one.

You seem fortunate that they work at all, in many areas it seems out of service ones are more common than working ones.

I'm definitely bitter tesla disabled supercharging. I wish they'd put some effort into identifying cars that actually represent a safety or publicity risk instead of blanket disabling everyone.

That would be an irrationally expensive requirement for an unsupported vehicle.

No supercharging has a big impact on the usability of the car.

If you take long trips often, yes it would- and would be a compelling reason to not buy a salvage title Tesla.

it's not like Tesla doesn't post the fact it won't allow supercharging for salvage vehicles on their own website.

For local use such a car would be fine though... for most folks it's very rare they drive more than 200ish miles in a single day after all, and if you do take a couple road trips a year you could always use a fraction of the $ saved buying a wrecked car instead of a clean title one and rent something.... or build longer Chademo charge stops into the trip plan I suppose.

(Hotels are also increasingly offering L2 charging to guests as another way to stretch trip range a bit)

 

[BritneySpears]

3rd party charging with chademo works for me as well but it's not clear if that's everyone's case. I get 40kw when 1/2 charged on a 50kw charger. Haven't tested much further. Tesla's new proclomation, after I bought my salvage car, that 3rd party charging will also be disabled seems like it will also be actually cut in the near future as has been done with supercharging. At that point tsla would have essentially bricked 1000s of cars. For us salvage owners I'm not sure what to do next. I'm not sure there's anything else to do right now.

 

[BritneySpears]

Since my first tests with chademo I have seen slightly faster speeds. Up to 30kwh. It's still not clear if tesla is slowing things down or if chademo chargers are just bad.

I'm definitely bitter tesla disabled supercharging. I wish they'd put some effort into identifying cars that actually represent a safety or publicity risk instead of blanket disabling everyone. No supercharging has a big impact on the usability of the car.

I agree. I've said it before and I'll say it again that Tesla is in conflict with the state governments they sell cars within and they are pushing the consequence of that conflict upon owners of branded titled cars. They have by default (or even somehow more explicitly) accepted the fact that states will re-certify an insurance loss vehicles yet they seem to want to turn them off after re-certification, if not force them into the scrap yard. That, imo, is not only wrong but should become illegal.

 

[BritneySpears]

FSD... This will come up soon as well. I purchased my branded title car with FSD, enhanced auto pilot, and premium connectivity. In principle, I bought a certain product at a certain price. The transaction has concluded. Hopefully tsla will honor that principle as I believe there's lots of legal precedence to uphold it. Maybe that's for a different forum thread...

 

[GZDongles]

I think there's a lot of simplification and pontification this this thread from those that don't really have any legal knowledge. Full disclosure I don't as well. I think both sides here make good points, and the discussion is a bit more nuanced than some seem to indicate.

This (“Who owns this car?”: Intellectual property protection of software-featured products - Munck Wilson Mandala) is a thoughtful take on the issue. Is comes down to the definition of an "essential feature".

Disabling essential features of a purchased product merely because those features were implemented via software is unlikely to be legally sustained. Disabling software features should not render a utilitarian product unsuitable for its intended use. A purchased car or smartphone should not have software features disabled in a manner preventing the purchaser—or any subsequent purchaser when the car or phone is resold—from driving the car or placing calls using the phone.

By contrast, non-essential features are fair game for various price-based marketing schemes. In addition to the possibility of features being disabled for non-purchase, several such schemes are already in use.

I'd also like to remind everyone that the precedent that many are citing from Apple and Microsoft also isn't that straightforward. Apple was hit with a $500M settlement this very year for remotely slowing phones through software updates. Now, the phones still worked, but the functionality was slightly degraded. You could potentially draw some parallels to this situation.

I'd argue that this is exactly what the civil court system is designed to handle. There's no point arguing with keyboard warriors on this forum about it, but a tiny bit of research will tell you that this isn't the settled legal issue that some people pretend it is. It's certainly worth getting a group of salvage owners together to test the waters with a lawsuit. Again, a lawsuit doesn't mean you hate Tesla or are a member of the dreaded TSLAQ, but that's how our society has chosen to work out complex legal and moral issues like this, for better or worse. It's also possible that some of this will be addressed by the in-process battery gate lawsuit which is dealing with a different manifestation of similar issues.

 

[Knightshade]

All this guy does is shill for tsla.

You keep using that word.

I do not think it means what you think it means.

3rd party charging with chademo works for me as well

Ah, so the "concern" you've been ranting about for page after page turned out to be imaginary.

How shocking.

I agree. I've said it before and I'll say it again that Tesla is in conflict with the state governments they sell cars within

This is 100% factually untrue.

Repeating nonsense with no ability to support the claim doesn't make it any less nonsense.

The state "certifying" your wrecked car puts no obligation of any kind on Tesla the company anywhere but your imagination.

FSD... This will come up soon as well. I purchased my branded title car with FSD, enhanced auto pilot, and premium connectivity. In principle, I bought a certain product at a certain price. The transaction has concluded. Hopefully tsla will honor that principle

Did you buy it from tesla?

Because if not I'm unsure why you keep imagining you have some contract with them.

if you bought a wrecked car from a junkyard that told you it had FSD, and it didn't, your legal recourse would be with the junkyard who made that representation- not Tesla with whom you've done no business whatsoever.

 

[BritneySpears]

You keep using that word.

I do not think it means what you think it means.




Ah, so the "concern" you've been ranting about for page after page turned out to be imaginary.

How shocking.




This is 100% factually untrue.

Repeating nonsense with no ability to support the claim doesn't make it any less nonsense.

The state "certifying" your wrecked car puts no obligation of any kind on Tesla the company anywhere but your imagination.




Did you buy it from tesla?

Because if not I'm unsure why you keep imagining you have some contract with them.

if you bought a wrecked car from a junkyard that told you it had FSD, and it didn't, your legal recourse would be with the junkyard who made that representation- not Tesla with whom you've done no business whatsoever.

There's nothing imaginary about Tesla publishing 3rd party charging will get disabled regardless of if it currently exists or not. You make little to no sense and ignore the spirit of my posts. Your response is to practice debate, it seems, which you are not good at except to prolong it. I won't entertain.

 

[GZDongles]

There's nothing imaginary about Tesla publishing 3rd party charging will get disabled regardless of if it currently exists or not. You make little to no sense and ignore the spirit of my posts. Your response is to practice debate, it seems, which you are not good at except to prolong it. I won't entertain.

That's one of the frustrating things about this (and most) forums. It's too easy to argue with each other and retreat to strawman or ad-hominem attacks rather than debating the spirit of a post with an open mind. One thing I absolutely hate about the Tesla community is the circle the wagons defensive mentality. Relax everyone, it's a publically traded company, not some mom and pop store. They can take care of themselves and don't need an army of people defending them online against short sellers. As if customer complaints on a Tesla forum have the power to magically move the market if they aren't valid or aren't substantiated.

FWIW I agree with you that it's wrong (morally, if not definitively legally) for Tesla to claim that they can disable third party DC fast charging through a forced software update. They may be able to do that legally, although you shouldn't believe the claims on here that it's quite that straightforward until a lawsuit provides some precedent. At the very least, we should all be concerned about our rights as consumers in the digital age. In many ways, the law is antiquated when it comes to software ownership, and I don't think the needs of consumers and content creators are always appropriately balanced.

I applaud your DIY spirit buying a salvage titled car, and hope that the CHAdeMO solution continues to work and make the charging experience viable for you.

 

[BritneySpears]

Anyone find if software update 2020.44.25 disables 3rd party dc charging? It’s not clear to me if disabling by vin is done through software updates or if it’s a direct push. I’ve read it can be both ways. Not sure I can postpone a software update either as the last one occurred on its own after I ignored it for days.

 

[Candleflame]

Since my first tests with chademo I have seen slightly faster speeds. Up to 30kwh. It's still not clear if tesla is slowing things down or if chademo chargers are just bad.

I'm definitely bitter tesla disabled supercharging. I wish they'd put some effort into identifying cars that actually represent a safety or publicity risk instead of blanket disabling everyone. No supercharging has a big impact on the usability of the car.

but you are already lucky that you can drive your car. in most countries salvage titles cant even be registered to take them on public roads.

 

[BritneySpears]

but you are already lucky that you can drive your car. in most countries salvage titles cant even be registered to take them on public roads.

I googled but couldn't find info on which countries disallow salvage title cars. I know I could export a salvage titled car from the US to Switzerland or Germany, for example, as I've considered doing that in the past, but it's not clear to me if they disallow the re-registration of insurance totaled vehicles within their countries.