Salvage Titles and Supercharging

[cybertruck808]

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/

Advertisement

 

[ReddykwRun]

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/

Just ask Rich over at Rich Rebuilds (YouTuber) he will tell you how he was burned by Tesla. Tesla even changed their mind after an inspection/certification of a Tesla automobile which was NOT free and dropped it from the SC network.

Stay away from salvaged Teslas you cannot make a road trip worthy Frankenstein Tesla, it's ALL about the VIN.

 

[cybertruck808]

Just ask Rich over at Rich Rebuilds (YouTuber) he will tell you how he was burned by Tesla. Tesla even changed their mind after an inspection/certification of a Tesla automobile which was NOT free and dropped it from the SC network.

Stay away from salvaged Teslas you cannot make a road trip worthy Frankenstein Tesla, it's ALL about the VIN.

Thanks. My concern is over the different standards that exist by state for issuing a salvage title to a vehicle and the uncertainty that brings for those who may be involved in a seemingly minor accident.

I'm hoping that Tesla creates a certification process for salvage title vehicles so that they can hook up to the supercharger network.

 

[Fabville]

Just ask Rich over at Rich Rebuilds (YouTuber) he will tell you how he was burned by Tesla. Tesla even changed their mind after an inspection/certification of a Tesla automobile which was NOT free and dropped it from the SC network.

Stay away from salvaged Teslas you cannot make a road trip worthy Frankenstein Tesla, it's ALL about the VIN.

I can’t remember which video it was, but I think he mentioned it was around $2K for him to have his car re-certified by Tesla if I remember right. Then, months later they decided to disable the supercharging yet again. I don’t believe he received any kind of refund for the recertification either.

 

[Newton]

I dont really care about tesla limiting supercharging to protect their stuff.
but limiting fast charging on other peoples chargers (not tesla related) is just wrong. essentailly making your car useless. but more worrysome to me is the fact that they can and do this and you just have to deal with it. a salvage title dosnt mean the cars destroyed at all.

 

[ajdelange]

The potential liability is on Tesla whether a potentially damaged battery pack explodes on a super charger or a CHAdeMO charger. To insure that there is no explosion in any case Tesla disables charging. Period. Now, of course, a clever enough guy can cobble together his own BMS and charge from an EA station. If the battery explodes Tesla can argue that they did everything they could to prevent this battery from ever being used and hope the court doesn't accept plaintiffs argument that clearly even that wasn't enough.

 

[Ehninger1212]

So why dont other OEM limit your use of gas pumps if you have a salvage title.. oh right.. BECAUSE THATS STUPID.

I think this is going to far.

 

[ajdelange]

For starters because there is no way they could do that. Second, while it is certainly true that people have injured themselves working on gas tanks (there is a reason they fill them with sand before welding things to them) the dangers are different with batteries and, maybe most pertinently, less, at this point in time, understood.

Perhaps I'm not understanding this correctly but if No. 5 is correct it is not that they are limiting charging at SC but are setting the car to disable fast charging from any source.

It isn't stupid for Tesla to do everything they can do to protect themselves in these hyper litigious times and be assured that they don't care a whit about whether any of us disagree with that posture or not. As a stockholder, of course, I approve.

 

[Newton]

For starters because there is no way they could do that. Second, while it is certainly true that people have injured themselves working on gas tanks (there is a reason they fill them with sand before welding things to them) the dangers are different with batteries and, maybe most pertinently, less, at this point in time, understood.

Perhaps I'm not understanding this correctly but if No. 5 is correct it is not that they are limiting charging at SC but are setting the car to disable fast charging from any source.

It isn't stupid for Tesla to do everything they can do to protect themselves in these hyper litigious times and be assured that they don't care a whit about whether any of us disagree with that posture or not. As a stockholder, of course, I approve.

perhaps thats is true, preventing fast charging from any source. but as we know there are literally thousands of salvage title cars that are perfectly safe for SC.

The issue I have is if Tesla decides its not safe. It shouldn't be Tesla's decision that disallows me from using MY car from 3rd party, non tesla charging.
I hold responsibility of what happens with something I payed for, not them. EXample: if the car blows up and burns down a charger, im responsible, no them. they arnt a government entity.


this is what tesla said from the electrek article:
"Tesla reserves the right to deactivate Supercharging capability on any vehicle we believe would be unsafe. If a vehicle is found to have been modified to enable Supercharging and/or fast-charging through third parties, Tesla may take legal action and seek compensation.”

the rich rebuilds guy says they allowed his charging, than disallowed it later, or course we dont know how true this is, but the fact is they can do this, at their will.

 

[ajdelange]

The issue I have is if Tesla decides its not safe. It shouldn't be Tesla's decision that disallows me from using MY car from 3rd party, non tesla charging.
I hold responsibility of what happens with something I payed for, not them.

Unfortunately, our current legal system doesn't see it that way. They are responsible if you harm yourself or someone else with their product even if they warned you not to do whatever it was you did and you did it anyway. So obviously their best bet is to prevent you from doing anything potentially dangerous with their product. And they have every right to do so. Charging is managed by software. You do not own the software in your Tesla any more than you own the software in your smart phone. All you have is a license.

I don't like it either but it is this way it is when the workings of a society are set by lawyers and bureaucrats. If you don't like it, don't buy a Tesla.

 

[Newton]

I see, i see. Live and learn.

 

[Red61224]

I can’t remember which video it was, but I think he mentioned it was around $2K for him to have his car re-certified by Tesla if I remember right. Then, months later they decided to disable the supercharging yet again. I don’t believe he received any kind of refund for the recertification either.

Exactly, a salvage title means you have a nice "town car" and will NEVER see a Super Charger ever again. Cut off at the knees.

 

[cybertruck808]

Unfortunately, our current legal system doesn't see it that way. They are responsible if you harm yourself or someone else with their product even if they warned you not to do whatever it was you did and you did it anyway. So obviously their best bet is to prevent you from doing anything potentially dangerous with their product. And they have every right to do so. Charging is managed by software. You do not own the software in your Tesla any more than you own the software in your smart phone. All you have is a license.

I don't like it either but it is this way it is when the workings of a society are set by lawyers and bureaucrats. If you don't like it, don't buy a Tesla.

I'm not sure if I agree with this. I'm pretty sure that Tesla could completely shield itself from liability via third party chargers if it wanted to; doesn't seem that difficult to do. Indeed, based on the Tesla logic, there is a higher risk of a salvage title vehicle catching fire at any charging station (fast or conventional . . . yes, there would be an even higher risk at a fast charger), but they haven't prohibited slower chargers. This seems more like Tesla wanting to avoid bad publicity if one of their salvage title vehicles catches fire while charging at any fast charger.

Tesla knows whether you're utilizing fast chargers due to its software programs, but the charging ultimately is not done by software (or rather, the software isn't absolutely necessary to utilize a charger). Tesla's software is not inherently implicated if you decide to charge. Note, I'm dubious as to whether Tesla can even legally prevent you from charging your vehicle at a third party fast charger, though I can't afford to be the test case. To be sure, Tesla could decide to stop giving you software updates and allowing the use of other Tesla services if you breach agreement with the company, but to actually try to prevent you from charging at a third party, unconnected fast charging service seems illegal as an unconscionable contract.

 

[Red61224]

Unfortunately, our current legal system doesn't see it that way. They are responsible if you harm yourself or someone else with their product even if they warned you not to do whatever it was you did and you did it anyway. So obviously their best bet is to prevent you from doing anything potentially dangerous with their product. And they have every right to do so. Charging is managed by software. You do not own the software in your Tesla any more than you own the software in your smart phone. All you have is a license.

I don't like it either but it is this way it is when the workings of a society are set by lawyers and bureaucrats. If you don't like it, don't buy a Tesla.

I hear you. What if all the other car manufacturers played this way. Ouch.

 

[cybertruck808]

Exactly, a salvage title means you have a nice "town car" and will NEVER see a Super Charger ever again. Cut off at the knees.

I'm still keeping my reservation for the time being. If Tesla changes this policy by the time that it is time to move further with my order, then I'm go through with the the purchase. Otherwise, I won't, which pains me to write, as the value of my Tesla (which is increased significantly by access to superchargers) would diminish as far as what I could do/where I could reasonably drive.