Tesla and Salvage rebuilt cars
Discussion
Speaking to a taxi driver yesterday who had bought a MY22 Model Y as a CAT S and repaired it with a certificate and MOT only to be informed last week that his vin had now been barred from the supercharge network.
Apparently Tesla are insisting that unless they can inspect the vehicle - at a cost of ££££, the vin will be barred for life.
I don’t know if this is true, but it blew my mind that a company could make up rules on the fly like that.
Apparently Tesla are insisting that unless they can inspect the vehicle - at a cost of ££££, the vin will be barred for life.
I don’t know if this is true, but it blew my mind that a company could make up rules on the fly like that.
Blue_star said:
Disguising innit.
You can always build a case why this is the way it should work (safety and all) but the human empathy element is going down the drain quickly.
Is byd going to be the same? I honestly see them as the biggest competitor of tesla, not bmw or merc
Why is it disgusting?You can always build a case why this is the way it should work (safety and all) but the human empathy element is going down the drain quickly.
Is byd going to be the same? I honestly see them as the biggest competitor of tesla, not bmw or merc
It seems very sensible to check that back street repairs are checked.
What if the repair was substandard and when plugging into the HV charging it set on fire?
Nothing new. I used to work in salvage management and bought a Cat S, front end damaged P90D in London about 12 years and there was similar issues not only with obtaining parts via Tesla, but yes also being locked out from any future warranty and there were also questions about charging. Though this was way back in the earlier days but it was still an issue.
andrew-6xade said:
It's understandable from Tesla
You're plugging a damaged car that they've not signed off into their charging network. Most repairs will be 100% but why would Tesla take the risk?
Indeed, and that does make sense. But it kind of falls down when you consider that 3rd party cars can also use Tesla chargers. Tesla have no control over how they’re designed, or if they have ever been damaged/repaired. You're plugging a damaged car that they've not signed off into their charging network. Most repairs will be 100% but why would Tesla take the risk?
Mr E said:
andrew-6xade said:
It's understandable from Tesla
You're plugging a damaged car that they've not signed off into their charging network. Most repairs will be 100% but why would Tesla take the risk?
Indeed, and that does make sense. But it kind of falls down when you consider that 3rd party cars can also use Tesla chargers. Tesla have no control over how they re designed, or if they have ever been damaged/repaired. You're plugging a damaged car that they've not signed off into their charging network. Most repairs will be 100% but why would Tesla take the risk?
Mr E said:
Indeed, and that does make sense. But it kind of falls down when you consider that 3rd party cars can also use Tesla chargers. Tesla have no control over how they re designed, or if they have ever been damaged/repaired.
Can non-Tesla makes of electric cars which are Cat S, use their network?Blue_star said:
ZX10R NIN said:
Tip of iceberg certain car makers are now something as simple as changing a battery a dealer only job.
Should be captured in competition law as a breachBill Farley views people working on their own cars as dangerous & by putting even simple jobs behind the dealer computer pay wall he's saving you & I from ourselves.
I disagree that it is understandable for Tesla to adopt this approach, and ultimately, this will cost the end user, us.
Tesla sells the car for the market price. The buyer crashes it, and the insurance pays out for the car, which is then sold on the salvage market and repaired. Tesla, which has already been paid for the car, now adds an extra layer of nonsense by imposing conditions on said car. Surely this should be set out as a condition of purchase at the point of sale?
In the end, it will mean that salvage values will fall and insurance companies will charge more for insurance.
In my view, this is a form of market interference and a reason why these computerised cars ultimately belong to the car company, not the consumer.
Tesla sells the car for the market price. The buyer crashes it, and the insurance pays out for the car, which is then sold on the salvage market and repaired. Tesla, which has already been paid for the car, now adds an extra layer of nonsense by imposing conditions on said car. Surely this should be set out as a condition of purchase at the point of sale?
In the end, it will mean that salvage values will fall and insurance companies will charge more for insurance.
In my view, this is a form of market interference and a reason why these computerised cars ultimately belong to the car company, not the consumer.
Tesla has form for this, at one point they were removing certain packs that people had purchased from the car once they'd changed owner!
As they were saying the pack belonged to the owner not the car.
They soon stopped when they got the backlash, same with BMW putting heated seats on the subscription service.
As they were saying the pack belonged to the owner not the car.
They soon stopped when they got the backlash, same with BMW putting heated seats on the subscription service.
Mr E said:
paul_c123 said:
Can non-Tesla makes of electric cars which are Cat S, use their network?
I can t think of any mechanism by which they (Tesla) would be able to know. AmitG said:
I wonder if they can get the VIN through the charging interface? I genuinely don't know, but if they can, then in theory they can do it.
For a Tesla, yes.For anything else, I don’t know.
I’ll admit I’ve only had a brief scan of the CCS spec, and am absolutely not claiming any form of expertise, but my read is there’s no requirement to exchange vin for CCS to work.
Gassing Station | Car Buying | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff