Salvage Titles and Supercharging

[Crissa]

The liability needs to be more clearly on the owner of a modded vehicle. It's just how our case law works: If they could perceive a risk, and did not mitigate it, they're partially at fault.

-Crissa

Advertisement

 

[cybertruck808]

OK. If software is unnecessary let's try thinking about a charging system that didn't use it. You approach a terminal you wish to charge from. There is a handset. You pick it up and hear instructions (lets let the charging network operator have software even if we can't) to enter your VIN number and a PIN on the keypad. For a non Tesla charger the voice asks for a credit card number and PIN. The distant computer determines that your car is capable of being charged by this charger and that you are authorized to charge and directs you to plug in the wand. The voice then tells you to go to the car's engineering instrument panel and record several voltage and temperatures and enter them into the charging tables (3 ring binder) in order to determine how many amps the charge would start with and to enter this number on the key pad. The voice announces "Charging started. Enter initial charging current". You go to the panel, read the current and punch that in. The voice then says "At the tone enter battery temperature readings T1 through T5 and current in that order" you do that. And so on.

Or from another perspective: the chargers adhere to certain standards so that a Tesla or BMW or Rivian can all charge from the same charger. These standards contain protocols for signalling the charge management, billing and authorization messages required for the system to operate. As is the case with any similar interface, this messaging is managed by software. It is inconceivable that it be done any other way.

Does that help? If it doesn't, I give up.

It doesn't really help me, no. It explains better how EV charging works and how Tesla and other companies use software as part of the charging process. It does not explain to me whether this software is necessary as a matter of course with EV charging. In short, I get how EV manufacturers have require the use/application of software to charge, but I haven't seen that this is necessary for the purpose of EV technology specifically.

Still, as I mentioned earlier, while an interesting conversation, this in no way touches on the basis of the meat of the conversation and overall topic at hand. Say that I accepted that software was absolutely necessary in order to charge a vehicle, Tesla's position still would be unnecessary (and, thus, I'd be against it) from a liability perspective.

Note, I think part of my fear (going back to the OP and some subsequent posts on the concept of salvage title) is that, being military, I do not truly know what states I'll be stationed in. However, I will conduct additional research before pulling the plug to determine the likelihood of being stationed in a state that does not utilize the TOTAL LOSS criteria for issuing salvage title. If the odds are low to nonexistent that I'd ever be stationed in such states, I'd go ahead with my purchase.

 

[cybertruck808]

The liability needs to be more clearly on the owner of a modded vehicle. It's just how our case law works: If they could perceive a risk, and did not mitigate it, they're partially at fault.

-Crissa

Thanks, Crissa!

Are you referring to case law specific to California?

If so, do you have any examples to provide?

Based on my knowledge of products liability law today (and I note that legislation/constitutional amendments supersedes case law all of the time, so you'd have to check to see if a particular case still represents good law or if legislation or a constitutional amendment--or if another opinion superseding the first one has been issued by a controlling court--has supplanted the case law), I am having a very difficult time seeing how Tesla would be liable if it allowed (with proper notice and contractual agreement with drivers) its owners having salvage title vehicles to utilize fast chargers, whether Tesla superchargers or third party fast chargers. This is especially so if Tesla itself did not sell a defective product (the vehicle became defective presumably due to issues outside of Tesla's control).

 

[ajdelange]

Probably the most relevant recent case that came to public attention was the one in California in which a driver turned on auto pilot and started to watch a movie on his CD player. While he was distracted the auto pilot did one of its auto pilot things and drove into a barrier killing him. His family is suing Telsa. Tesla makes it very, very plain, in dozens of places throughout the manual, through warnings in the car, through it's requirements that the driver have his hand on the wheel, that the autopilot represents beta software and that the driver must be alert and able to take over at any time. So plaintiffs claim would be that Tesla did not warn the driver sufficiently or that the product was defective. Whether Tesla wins this or not it costs them lots to defend such cases. Clearly they can remove their exposure to this particular liability by disabling auto pilot but that would cost them much more in lost sales than the defense of a relatively rare lawsuit. Disabling fast charging on a salvage isn't going to cost them many sales. There very few who would even think about the scenario OP has nightmares about.

 

[cybertruck808]

Nobody is having nightmares about anything, but thanks.

Also, citations would be greatly appreciated in order to look into the status of a particular case. Frivolous lawsuits are filed all of the time and are dismissed on summary judgment motions all of the time (meaning that they don't even go to trial). This point is all the more important for the purpose of this conversation as the Tesla contract of purchase/services requires that all disputes be settled via arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association, which is loads less expensive than courtroom litigation. But companies like Tesla have full legal departments just for cases like these (and other legitimate legal matters). Tesla isn't spending extra money on legal services that it doesn't have to; it has an entire legal staff on salary/contract/retainer.

On this note, the United States Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right of large corporations to force (via contract) arbitration vs. courtroom litigation, so this isn't an issue that folks can just get around. This has been in accordance with the Court's interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act. See, for instance: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Arbitration_Act#Partial_preemption_of_state_law and http://employeerightsadvocacy.org/o...-arbitration-in-the-workplace/justice-denied/

 

[ajdelange]

Tesla isn't spending extra money on legal services that it doesn't have to; it has an entire legal staff on salary/contract/retainer.

No, it isn't the point being that if they can eliminate a risk class by a modification to a piece of software they can fire a couple of lawyers and hire a couple more engineers. As a consumer would you prefer knowing that part of what you pay for the car is going to retain a lawyer or an engineer?

 

[TyPope]

I just read an article about Tesla disabling salvage title vehicles from accessing the supercharging network (and other third party fast chargers); the policy has been in place for months, but I am just finding about it now.

Apparently, it is due to safety issues. If the battery has been damaged in an accident, then there is an increased risk of fire, etc., if attached to a fast charger. This is risk that Tesla rightfully doesn't want to accept.

The problem I've been reading, however, is that there is no way to remove a salvage title from this restriction list so to speak. It seems to be that once you're listed as a salvage title for fast charging purposes, that's a wrap for you, which would be upsetting especially if it can be proved that there is no damage to the battery pack on your vehicle.

Considering that the supercharger network is the main reason why I would pick Tesla above any other EV manufacturer, disallowing salvage titles from using the supercharger network (and other third party fast chargers) is a MAJOR problem going forward. To be fair, I'm hearing mixed things about this, but that only adds to the uncertainty level. I hear that it's possible to recertify your Tesla if it does get into an accident, but then I'm reading countless other articles stating that once your vehicle is listed as a "salvage title," it will permanently retain that designation for supercharging purposes.

I'm curious to hear if others have any insight on this issue. If things are as I fear, I will most likely forego buying a CT, especially as one who would be relying on a supercharger once I move back to Hawaii as my high rise complex doesn't have an EV charging station/outlets. This is a real bummer

Some articles on the matter:

https://electrek.co/2020/02/12/tesla-disables-supercharging-salvaged-vehicles/

https://insideevs.com/news/405581/tesla-no-supercharging-salvage-rich-rebuilds/

https://www.teslarati.com/tesla-salvag-vehicles-the-red-headed-stepchild/

You won't be buying a CT with a salvage title so it shouldn't affect you. If you get into an accident bad enough to warrant a salvage title, you'll be sitting in a new CT... So, it doesn't apply to you.

 

[Crissa]

Thanks, Crissa!

Are you referring to case law specific to California?

No, that's just how all law works in the United States. I'm not a lawyer, I don't know the name of this particular feature, but it is how liability works.

We can do some shielding but we have to shift how law is done for most of it. Just because you can perceive a threat doesn't mean mitigating it is worthwhile. Law can be created to change the tests by which it is measured.

If so, do you have any examples to provide?

This is how slip and fall law works. And why it exists.

Tesla is the one whose software is responsible for checking the health of the battery pack and car. If they give it the go ahead to charge, and it burns down, they're partially responsible. And right now, just the perception of a fire hazard is particularly dangerous to their bottom line.

Their cars burn at less than one one hundredth the rate of gasoline cars and yet, which gets on the national news?

-Crissa

 

[ldjessee]

The protocols for charging EVs requires a digital 'handshake'.
It is not just plugging in a lamp and turning on a light switch.
It is closer to plugging in an ethernet port or newer HDMI standards.
If the handshake does not go well, nothing happens.
That is why software is required. The protocol/standard requires it.

J1772 standard
CCS standard
Chademo standard
(all of those are Wikipedia articles, but if you want to drill down to more technical, there are links there)

 

[Crissa]

There's 'software' even in a on-board 'dumb' charger and the battery management system. It needs to know what voltages and temperatures are correct for the battery - and the high power dc charging stations offload all of that from the vehicle, so of course the vehicle needs to tell the station lots about its status.

-Crissa

 

[cybertruck808]

No, it isn't the point being that if they can eliminate a risk class by a modification to a piece of software they can fire a couple of lawyers and hire a couple more engineers. As a consumer would you prefer knowing that part of what you pay for the car is going to retain a lawyer or an engineer?

You're changing the goal post now. You stated earlier that the allowing for such charging for salvage title vehicles would lead to more costly litigation. That is not the case. Tesla doesn't need to hire any more people/pay anything it isn't paying (you're overstating the amount of legal work that it takes to file a motion for summary judgment to dismiss a case improperly filed in court as it goes against the binding arbitration clause . . . hell a standard template for these filings are likely on standby). I find it hard to believe that Tesla would have to bring on extra legal help to deal with such cases.

 

[cybertruck808]

No, that's just how all law works in the United States. I'm not a lawyer, I don't know the name of this particular feature, but it is how liability works.

We can do some shielding but we have to shift how law is done for most of it. Just because you can perceive a threat doesn't mean mitigating it is worthwhile. Law can be created to change the tests by which it is measured.


This is how slip and fall law works. And why it exists.

Tesla is the one whose software is responsible for checking the health of the battery pack and car. If they give it the go ahead to charge, and it burns down, they're partially responsible. And right now, just the perception of a fire hazard is particularly dangerous to their bottom line.

Their cars burn at less than one one hundredth the rate of gasoline cars and yet, which gets on the national news?

-Crissa

Thanks, Crissa.

This isn't slip and fall law . And that's now how general civil liability works and is not how products liability law works specifically; I already discussed the standards in previous posts.

Tesla can deal with any potential issue by an aggressive waiver policy. It would only be a problem here if Tesla assumed or otherwise accepted responsibility for what you describe.

Moreover, as I mentioned, parties suing Tesla are required to submit to binding arbitration, which throws a completely different wrench (potentially) into the applicable law and legal standards.

 

[cybertruck808]

The protocols for charging EVs requires a digital 'handshake'.
It is not just plugging in a lamp and turning on a light switch.
It is closer to plugging in an ethernet port or newer HDMI standards.
If the handshake does not go well, nothing happens.
That is why software is required. The protocol/standard requires it.

J1772 standard
CCS standard
Chademo standard
(all of those are Wikipedia articles, but if you want to drill down to more technical, there are links there)

Thanks for that. My question remains whether it is possible to just plug in and turn on (i.e. whether software is required as a matter of course for EV charging) or whether these protocols/standards are set up in a way to require software. I fully understand why manufacturers, etc. require the use of software for EV charging and how that process. My question has been whether the foundations of EV charging require such software.

Still, as I mentioned, while an interesting academic discussion, this really doesn't have anything to do with my OP, though I'm happy to continue discussing.

 

[ajdelange]

People keep telling you that software/firmware is necessary. These batteries are not the old lead acid batteries that you could charge with a transformer and a rectifier. Even the thing you put the batteries from your cordless drill into has a microprocessor or special purpose chip monitoring temperature, individual cell voltage etc. Thus based on the physics alone you must have software/firmware. Not only is it necessary but it also allows Tesla to change the charging algorithm over the air. Perhaps you weren't aware of this but Tesla adds improvements to the vehicles (or at least fixes problems) on average, I'd say, every couple of weeks.

Now add to this that in any charging situation (including Level 1 or 2 at home) you must have some way of being sure that the vehicle connected to the car is capable of being safely charged by the charger and of telling the vehicle how much charge it can take and of responding to the car's requests to initiate and terminate charging. Finally, if the charger is a revenue producing operation the charger must be able to identify the vehicle in order to know whom to bill for the service. It is inconceivable that this be done without software.

In setting up the protocols the standards bodies do not sit down and say "Let's figure out how to do this in a way that requires software". It is assumed, a-priori, that software will be used. There is no other way to do all these things. It would add acres of complexity and cost to try to figure out how to do them without software. Rather the standards bodies try to figure out how to write a bullet proof (it can't be misinterpreted set of requirements for the interfaces, hardware and software, that insure a variety of cars can connect to a variety of manufacturers' charging equipment.

Thus really what Tesla is doing is no different from what EA is doing. If you drive your Taycan up to an EA charger, plug in and give a credit card number which EA has had trouble collecting funds from previously they will not allow the charge. If you connect a Tesla which Tesla does not think can safely charge, they will not initiate the charge.

 

[cybertruck808]

People keep telling you that software/firmware is necessary. These batteries are not the old lead acid batteries that you could charge with a transformer and a rectifier. Even the thing you put the batteries from your cordless drill into has a microprocessor or special purpose chip monitoring temperature, individual cell voltage etc. Thus based on the physics alone you must have software/firmware. Not only is it necessary but it also allows Tesla to change the charging algorithm over the air. Perhaps you weren't aware of this but Tesla adds improvements to the vehicles (or at least fixes problems) on average, I'd say, every couple of weeks.

Now add to this that in any charging situation (including Level 1 or 2 at home) you must have some way of being sure that the vehicle connected to the car is capable of being safely charged by the charger and of telling the vehicle how much charge it can take and of responding to the car's requests to initiate and terminate charging. Finally, if the charger is a revenue producing operation the charger must be able to identify the vehicle in order to know whom to bill for the service. It is inconceivable that this be done without software.

In setting up the protocols the standards bodies do not sit down and say "Let's figure out how to do this in a way that requires software". It is assumed, a-priori, that software will be used. There is no other way to do all these things. It would add acres of complexity and cost to try to figure out how to do them without software. Rather the standards bodies try to figure out had to write a bullet proof set of requirements for the interfaces, hardware and software, that insure a variety of cars can connect to a variety of manufacturers' charging equipment.

Thus really what Tesla is doing is no different from what EA is doing. If you drive your Taycan up to an EA charger, plug in and give a credit card number which EA has had trouble collecting funds from previously they will not allow the charge. If you connect a Tesla which Tesla does not think can safely charge, they will not initiate the charge.

Look, what you're saying makes sense conceptually. I've just called for something other than an explanation of how manufacturers have worked the process for EV models on the market today. And, rather, something that shows that this is actually necessary based on the fundamentals of EV technology.

Still, I don't know why this continues to be an issue. As I've explained, it is irrelevant to this thread.