Teslas With Rebuilt Title - Supercharging Removal

[ElectricIAC]

Flood tesla most likely will have a trashed battery and on another video of his it was shown that the seals aren’t as impermeable as they appear to be at first glance. As far as physical damage goes like a hard impact that deforms the structure that will be obvious as well and for integrity purposes a new or used and intact pack should be sourced.

I totally get where you’re going but not all cars are branded salvage/total loss because they’re financially unviable to repair. Some insurers will supplement to value and total loss for parts unavailability or significant backorder (I’ve personally experienced this one)

I could cite any number of examples but the point is that it isn’t really fair to blanket all branded title vehicles as unsafe death traps.

 

[user212_nr]

I totally get where you’re going but not all cars are branded salvage/total loss because they’re financially unviable to repair. Some insurers will supplement to value and total loss for parts unavailability or significant backorder (I’ve personally experienced this one)

Exactly. Tesla could do a lot more to differentiate these cars and make some available for supercharging, but its hard to blame them for taking the "easy and cheap" solution. Especially for legal reason, being that this solution was likely drafted by their lawyers. Lawyers are shrewd people who aren't thinking about how to "help other people".

We live in a litigious society where companies can get sued because their "coffee was too hot" and so now we have warnings of coffee "Caution: HOT".

In the society that we live in, putting this stupid label on the product actually helps avoid lawsuits. We all know that it does nothing.

Here's a gas can manufacturer that went out of business because it didn't listen to their lawyers over their engineers. Engineers said the "safety measures" were useless and actually harmful. Said pouring gas of a lit fire always dangerous. Lawyers made a case an put them out of their misery, an entire company unemployed. As of the time of this video, the U.S. has/had no gas can manufacturing.

 

[Msjulie]

And in the recent term changes on their salvage vehicle support policy Tesla added they can actually sue you for damages if you enable unauthorized access to their supercharging network.

Any lawyer out there that can explain why this is true for DC fast charging (not so much super charging) - seems there is interesting tension between modifying 'leased' software? and disabling the owners rights to use the device and right to repair laws in various states.

I'm genuinely curious; I can see why Tesla could disallow use of their chargers but any other fast DC? Seems overreach?

 

[Knightshade]

We live in a litigious society where companies can get sued because their "coffee was too hot" and so now we have warnings of coffee "Caution: HOT".

FWIW the coffee suit was entirely valid and people who cite it this way generally didn't actually look up any of the details first.




She was not driving (as is often claimed)- the car wasn't even moving. She was a passenger and the cup spilled while she attempted to add sugar and cream.

She admitted the spill was her fault- the lawsuit was over the fact that unlike what would happen spilling most commercially served beverages- she suffered 3rd degree burns requiring skin grafts.

She originally only asked them to pay $20,000- the actual cost of her medical bills and expenses from injury. McDonalds offered $800. So it went to trial.

In going to trial her lawyers only asked for $100,000 in compensatory damages (covering costs, and now adding pain and suffering)- and then asking for 3x in punative damages for McDonalds callous conduct.


At trial we found out:

The coffee was served at a temp that causes third degree burns in 3-7 seconds- they were serving it 20-30 degrees hotter than is typical in the industry

McDonalds own quality assurance manager testified the coffee was served at a temperature too hot for human consumption.

Mcdonalds admitted they were aware of over -700- reports of serious injuries over previous years from the temperature they serve at and did nothing to address the issue year after year after year other than pay out small amounts to those injured.



The jury themselves said McDonalds showed a callous disregard for the safety of their customers over years and years with hundreds of known, serious, burns caused by their product and refused to address it.

THAT is why the jury issued a verdict for ~3 million in punitive damages (roughly 2 days of coffee sales for McDonalds)- VASTLY more than the victim had asked for- in attempt to genuinely punish McDonalds for their behavior.

A judge later reduced that amount to $640,000...and the parties actually settled for a lower, undisclosed, amount.

 

[user212_nr]

FWIW the coffee suit was entirely valid and people who cite it this way generally didn't actually look up any of the details first.

It does not matter if it was valid or not. We live in a litigious culture where people can and do sue over anything and everything.

That's why companies like Tesla have lawyers who tell them to do things like shutoff people's DC fast charging.

 

[MP3Mike]

It does not matter if it was valid or not. We live in a litigious culture where people can and do sue over anything and everything.

That's why companies like Tesla have lawyers who tell them to do things like shutoff people's DC fast charging.

Exactly. We have even seem people in here saying that the on-board diagnostics will detect any problems and keep them safe. (And of course if they didn't Tesla would get blamed.)

And we have seen two reports of fires in Model Ss that were reported to be caused by loose/under torqued high voltage connections. I think Tesla has improved on-board diagnostics around this but it is never going to be 100%. (One of them was while driving, the other while Supercharging.)

 

[user212_nr]

Any lawyer out there that can explain why this is true for DC fast charging (not so much super charging) - seems there is interesting tension between modifying 'leased' software? and disabling the owners rights to use the device and right to repair laws in various states.

I'm genuinely curious; I can see why Tesla could disallow use of their chargers but any other fast DC? Seems overreach?

Our technology IP laws are heavily in favor of the content producers. You can't even turn on most devices/websites without agreeing to their terms.

Are Website Terms Of Use Enforceable?

 

[Uncle Paul]

Apple and others have also revisited charging rates for their devices. Believe this is something that woke companies should do from time to time.

Leaving fast charging, that Tesla was aware was going to damage owners cars unchanged, could also open them up to lawsuits.

Life is tough for manufacturers of leading edge products.

 

[Msjulie]

Our technology IP laws are heavily in favor of the content producers. You can't even turn on most devices/websites without agreeing to their terms.

Are Website Terms Of Use Enforceable?

Thanks for the link but I'm not convinced (and still not a lawyer) how it pertains to preventing right-to-repair and the ability to use the repaired device outside Tesla's network. I don't have any plans to buy a salvaged Tesla so the stakes are low for me but it really irks me the amount of waste created that could be prevented; a for-pay policy to certify the car feels reasonable to me.

Unrelated but close as I can come to relevant, friend has a laptop with a bios password. 6 years old, needs a new hard drive which is when we come to find out the password is there and the laptop will not boot on a new disk cause of the password which is of course long forgotten. Junk the machine? Gross - old but perfect for middle school kids so pay to have the password removed and saved the machine from filling a landfill someplace by replacing a < $100 part.

Just my penny's worth.

 

[mswlogo]

It’s more about liability than safety.

No brainer. Not worth their trouble, they have enough their plate without having to deal with wrecks.

 

[ElectricIAC]

It’s more about liability than safety.

No brainer. Not worth their trouble, they have enough their plate without having to deal with wrecks.

Things don’t have to make sense if they earn/save a dollar.

 

[Msjulie]

Things don’t have to make sense if they earn/save a dollar.

I guess I prefer to believe lawyers vs Tesla itself caused this to happen, then I can blame some (abstract) one.

 

[mswlogo]

Things don’t have to make sense if they earn/save a dollar.

Don’t follow. Makes perfect sense to me. And I don’t blame them a bit.

 

[ElectricIAC]

Let’s see. If a company touts sustainable practices and stewardship of precious resources then actively condemns and discourages rebuilding — a practice that makes use of previously discarded vehicles to further the former.

Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense does it? Just dollars.

 

[Knightshade]

It does not matter if it was valid or not. We live in a litigious culture where people can and do sue over anything and everything.

It does matter though because the McDonalds suit is a terrible example of the point trying to be made.

It wasn't someone who was litigious, and not a case of someone suing over "anything and everything"


The woman explicitly did NOT WANT TO SUE, despite having an incredibly valid reason to and in the face of gross corporate negligence.

McDonalds forced her to sue because despite them knowing the severe 3rd degree burns were their own fault, and despite having ignored this happening to hundreds of others, they refused to even offer to cover her modest medical bills and costs- which was all she initially asked them for.

 

[mswlogo]

Let’s see. If a company touts sustainable practices and stewardship of precious resources then actively condemns and discourages rebuilding — a practice that makes use of previously discarded vehicles to further the former.

Doesn’t make a whole lot of sense does it? Just dollars.

Pretty small fraction. Some day sure. Today they don’t have the resources to do it.

 

[user212_nr]

It does matter though because the McDonalds suit is a terrible example of the point trying to be made.

The point being made is that lawsuits are common and that to protect against lawsuits actions are taken proactively.

If the McDonalds lawsuit is valid that make it an even better example, not a worse one. I agree that if Tesla enabled DC charging on a salvage vehicle, and a court decided in favor of the plaintiff, then that lawsuit would be VALID.

 

[Tycofa]

It’s not as big a deal as people think to not have access to Tesla Super Charge network. You can use the ChargePoint network which is very big and lots of them are free. They do have DC Fast charge stations all over which will charge 160-250miles per hour. You do need to purchase a CHAdeMO adapter for fast charging and a adapter from the slower charge stations. The bigger CHAdeMO you can buy from Tesla for about $500. I added a image of the bigger charger adapter.

 

[Tycofa]

It’s not as big a deal as people think to not have access to Tesla Super Charge network. You can use the ChargePoint network which is very big and lots of them are free. They do have DC Fast charge stations all over which will charge 160-250miles per hour. You do need to purchase a CHAdeMO adapter for fast charging and a adapter from the slower charge stations. The bigger CHAdeMO you can buy from Tesla for about $500. I added a image of the bigger charger adapter.

 

[MP3Mike]

You can use the ChargePoint network which is very big and lots of them are free. They do have DC Fast charge stations all over which will charge 160-250miles per hour. You do need to purchase a CHAdeMO adapter for fast charging and a adapter from the slower charge stations. The bigger CHAdeMO you can buy from Tesla for about $500. I added a image of the bigger charger adapter.

My understanding is that Tesla disables both Supercharging and third-party DC fast charging. So you can't use the CHAdeMO adapter either. Have they changed and now leave third-party DC fast charging enabled?