Teslas With Rebuilt Title - Supercharging Removal

[Knightshade]

Why all the negativity against an owner?

You appear to be confusing "negativity" with 'facts, including citing your own words and the law"

If you don't like the facts, that's certainly your right.

If you misspoke in previous posts you're free to correct yourself.

Neither is "negative" or "against" anything at all except misinformation and incorrect legal claims.

You're either a shill for Tesla or you're just jealous that I paid a lot less money for the same car you paid a lot more for

Now see, this would be a great example of negativity against an owner.

And ALSO inaccurate facts.

For example we don't have the same car.

Mine still supercharges.

And has a factory warranty.

And doesn't have garbage resale value from being totalled. (in fact it has arguably the highest resale value of any vehicle on the market from current data- so it's likely I'd lose less money reselling mine than you would yours).


But again those are simply facts, and it's clear you're not a fan of those.

I see owning software like owning my fender. I can dent, repaint, kick in, drill a hole in my fender as I please. It's my fender. I however don't own the tool and dye that made it, I don't own the material specification, I don't own the process spec, the quality control spec, and I don't own the drawing spec. That's the nature of software. I don't own the source code and don't feel I should either[/QUOTE}

Then your understanding factually and legally incorrect.

You can, for example, take your fender apart and resell individually- you can't do that with the software on your car because you do not own the software you license it

While that doesn't mean you have NO rights regarding the software, it does mean you have significantly different rights as compared to an owned physical object.

 

[lowtoast]

Ordered a chademo adapter to test DC fast charging. ETA is tomorrow, I'll you all know how it turns out!

 

[ElectricIAC]

You appear to be confusing "negativity" with 'facts, including citing your own words and the law"

If you don't like the facts, that's certainly your right.

If you misspoke in previous posts you're free to correct yourself.

Neither is "negative" or "against" anything at all except misinformation and incorrect legal claims.




Now see, this would be a great example of negativity against an owner.

And ALSO inaccurate facts.

For example we don't have the same car.

Mine still supercharges.

And has a factory warranty.

And doesn't have garbage resale value from being totalled. (in fact it has arguably the highest resale value of any vehicle on the market from current data- so it's likely I'd lose less money reselling mine than you would yours).


But again those are simply facts, and it's clear you're not a fan of those.

I dunno about that as a percentage.

If they didn’t overpay for the base of the rebuild and did their own work then arguably they could recover more value out of the car (to them) on resale.

 

[Knightshade]

I dunno about that as a percentage.

If they didn’t overpay for the base of the rebuild and did their own work then arguably they could recover more value out of the car (to them) on resale.

FWIW anybody I know that's rebuilt/resold cars hasn't come off that well unless they drastically underpaid themselves for their own time- they always explain it as "Well I paid nothing for labor because I did it myself!" as if their own time ls literally worthless and they've never heard the term opportunity cost either.

 

[pjensen]

This is totally different from transmitting vast amounts of electrical energy at high speed into a battery, which is an active, exothermic, chemical reaction. And that process must be actively monitored and controlled by the car using a whole host of sensors and software, in addition to various high-voltage circuits that connect more or less directly to the SC connector. This is complex, unfamiliar to most mechanics, and dangerous if it goes wrong or is not properly maintained/repaired/tested. So yes, I do get why Tesla did what they did (but read more below).

Just adding to this...

In a crash, there can be a lot of g-force. Circuit board components can be damaged internally - enough to operate normally at low power levels. But could fail at high current levels (due to heating). Sensors and circuit board traces/solder joints can also fail intermittently.

There is no way to completely (economically) test a damaged system that would guarantee it would perform correctly in the future (at a super charger).

Tesla's liability is just too high.

 

[ElectricIAC]

FWIW anybody I know that's rebuilt/resold cars hasn't come off that well unless they drastically underpaid themselves for their own time- they always explain it as "Well I paid nothing for labor because I did it myself!" as if their own time ls literally worthless and they've never heard the term opportunity cost either.

Depends on the motive.

 

[drtimhill]

Sure....But let’s say that safety is the only motive....If they’re going to close off the repair and reuse avenues then why even let salvage cars get out into the market for spare parts and rebuild/rescue?

Certainly now they could afford to buy back every last one of them. Yknow, like if was all about safety. (Let’s be real, it isn’t — Nothing hollers like the dollars)

First, how exactly is Tesla supposed to stop those cars being used for salvage? I can't think of any way except for them to attempt to exert the kind of control over the cars that you yourself have berated them for in this very thread.

Second, why do you think safety and $$ are mutually exclusive? To be sure there is a dollar motive here .. bad publicity and/or liability issues. So what? The fact is, a rebuilt car is, by definition, an unknown and potentially dangerous risk for Tesla to allow on the SC network (r any fast charger). So we have a huge liability risk, and a significant (and unknown) safety risk.

Do you really understand how complex the battery systems are? And the potential risks if the various safeguards and sensors are not functioning within specification? Do you have a clear idea of just how much energy is being pumped into the car during supercharging? For comparison, a furnace for an average home puts out about 15kW of heat, so when supercharging you may be pumping the equivalent of ten furnaces at once, even more on L3 SCs.

Finally, as has been noted in this thread, Tesla make it abundantly clear on their web site that they will disable supercharging on a salvaged car. If I were looking at a potential salvage purchase, I think the Tesla web site is the place I would check first.

 

[pjensen]

Do you really understand how complex the battery systems are? And the potential risks if the various safeguards and sensors are not functioning within specification? Do you have a clear idea of just how much energy is being pumped into the car during supercharging?

This is absolutely the issue in this thread.

 

[lowtoast]

Success with the chademo adapter. I'm not able to supercharge in my salvage model 3 but I can still DC fast charge.
I was blocked from supercharging last week and I was able to dc fast charge today with the adapter.

 

[Jonkoehn]

Success with the chademo adapter. I'm not able to supercharge in my salvage model 3 but I can still DC fast charge.
I was blocked from supercharging last week and I was able to dc fast charge today with the adapter.

At what rate did it charge? 50kw? I'll go ahead and get a adapter. Where did you buy yours?

 

[Jonkoehn]

At what rate did it charge? 50kw? I'll go ahead and get a adapter. Where did you buy yours?

I suppose you can only get it from tesla?

 

[ElectricIAC]

eBay if not Tesla.

Service center May have one as well.

 

[ElectricIAC]

First, how exactly is Tesla supposed to stop those cars being used for salvage? I can't think of any way except for them to attempt to exert the kind of control over the cars that you yourself have berated them for in this very thread.

I believe I explained this already. Buy back every possible totaled/salvage/rebuilt and you’ll eliminate supply to the point where it’s unviable to rebuild.

I didn’t say it was right or a good idea: but if safety is truly first then why half ass it with a toggle that can be reversed?

 

[BritneySpears]

You wrote:

. . . just throw good cars away because they’ve committed the mortal sin of being in an accident.

Let's be perfectly clear here. These are NOT "good cars." These are cars that have been totalled, they have been potentially "fixed" by people that have never been to a Tesla technician class and are making repairs on an ad hoc, and cheapest-route-possible method. Even if YOU, personally, would not have done that, Tesla has ZERO way of knowing the competence of the repairs. ZERO.

When one of these blows up, and this is a likely outcome eventually, after a shoddy "repair" by someone working with used butter knives in his garage (yes, I'm thinking of you Rich Rebuilds), the PR nightmare will be Tesla's, not that of the unknown person working in garage who will likely sue Tesla for allowing him to Supercharge his dangerous car. It's a lose-lose scenario and I can easily understand why Tesla has to be very, very careful.

I'm sorry that you can't understand this.

Tsla pilot you are wrong. Your response is qualitative and emotional. "not good cars? I'm no lawyer but that's a non-argument, non-statement. I rebuke all your statements on butter knives and so on. There's no law at least in my state that I as an owner have to repair my car at the manufacturer. It is not Tesla's business to certify any repairs or anything I do to my car. The state has ceritified it. Take up your argument with them.

 

[drtimhill]

Tsla pilot you are wrong. Your response is qualitative and emotional. "not good cars? I'm no lawyer but that's a non-argument, non-statement. I rebuke all your statements on butter knives and so on. There's no law at least in my state that I as an owner have to repair my car at the manufacturer. It is not Tesla's business to certify any repairs or anything I do to my car. The state has ceritified it. Take up your argument with them.

This is all beside the point (again), since, as has been noted elsewhere, the only thing Tesla have done is disable access to superchargers. Your car is still your car, you have not been "robbed" of anything .. you bought a salvaged car, you still have a salvaged car.

And your very arguments condemn your complaint. You have said time and time again that, since you own the car, you can do what you like with it, and that's no business of Teslas. Well good, but you may not have noticed this, but it's Tesla that own the superchargers, and by your own standards that means they can do anything they like with them. And this includes not allowing salvage cars access.

As has been noted here by myself and others, the way they cut you off isnt exactly polite .. the car should have alerted you maybe 24 hours in advance, so you were not stranded. But I dont see how you can argue that they weren't within their rights.

 

[Jonkoehn]

This is all beside the point (again), since, as has been noted elsewhere, the only thing Tesla have done is disable access to superchargers. Your car is still your car, you have not been "robbed" of anything .. you bought a salvaged car, you still have a salvaged car.

And your very arguments condemn your complaint. You have said time and time again that, since you own the car, you can do what you like with it, and that's no business of Teslas. Well good, but you may not have noticed this, but it's Tesla that own the superchargers, and by your own standards that means they can do anything they like with them. And this includes not allowing salvage cars access.

As has been noted here by myself and others, the way they cut you off isnt exactly polite .. the car should have alerted you maybe 24 hours in advance, so you were not stranded. But I dont see how you can argue that they weren't within their rights.

The only point I'd like to make is, they didn't alter THEIR supercharger. They altered MY car. I understand why they had to do this, since it's the car that communicates to the SC to allow power to be transferred. And I don't expect them to redesign all of the existing SCers. But I think this fact is what is causing the feeling of violation. My car has been altered in a way I cannot change, and the change will effect the usability of it and the resell value. But once again, I understand why Tesla made this decision. I just hope at some point in the near future we'll be able to recertified our vehicles to SC.

 

[Knightshade]

The only point I'd like to make is, they didn't alter THEIR supercharger. They altered MY car.

Nope.

Your car is physically unchanged.

They altered their software that you are permitted to run on the vehicle.

Again the difference between owning a physical product and licensing the use of software... I provided many examples of lots of other tech companies making such changes in the past to their software automatically/without specific user approval (Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc)

 

[Jonkoehn]

The only point I'd like to make is, they didn't alter THEIR supercharger. They altered MY car. I understand why they had to do this, since it's the car that communicates to the SC to allow power to be transferred. And I don't expect them to redesign all of the existing SCers. But I think this fact is what is causing the feeling of violation. My car has been altered in a way I cannot change, and the change will effect the usability of it and the resell value. But once again, I understand why Tesla made this decision. I just hope at some point in the near future we'll be able to recertified our vehicles to SC.

Nope.

Your car is physically unchanged.

They altered their software that you are permitted to run on the vehicle.

Again the difference between owning a physical product and licensing the use of software... I provided many examples of lots of other tech companies making such changes in the past to their software automatically/without specific user approval (Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, etc)

If they alter their software to lock up my rear tire, my car has been physically effected. If they alter their software to limit my top speed to 15mph, my car has been physically effected. If they disabled my ability to charge my car at a fast rate, my car has been physically effected. I'm not complaining. I've already moved on and financed a cheap ice car for longer trips. I'm just pointing out why people feel violated, and maybe...just maybe, they are entitled to some of that feeling. Perhaps once there are more dc fast charging options out there this won't be a issue.

 

[Knightshade]

If they alter their software to lock up my rear tire, my car has been physically effected

.... and if Apple altered their software to brick your phone for no reason you'd likewise have a legitimate complaint.

But disabling access via software to an external thing not owned by you? Not so much.

Nothing they've done changes how the car itself functions.

It only changes how it interacts with an external thing Tesla owns

 

[lowtoast]

At what rate did it charge? 50kw? I'll go ahead and get a adapter. Where did you buy yours?

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.