Rebuilt cars, if done right, are one way into a quality EV like Tesla. New or even not-rebuilt used are prohibitively expensive for anyone making an average wage. I'd be willing to pay for a recertification and then pay for the supercharging from there on. Without supercharging, the Tesla S90D I was considering at $34,000 (paying cash because no bank will finance a rebuilt title car) isn't as useful as the Chevy Volt I will be buying today. Elon Musk should rethink his policy because more Teslas on the road are better publicity than a bunch of wrecking yard possibilities.
thomas - 3 years ago
There are so many badly repaired and botched cars going back on the roads these days. Many of which end up being sold to unsuspecting people who know nothing about cars. It is great to see a motor manufacturer actualy taken some resonsibility on what happens to there Total Loss Products. These cars are written off for a reason and too complex for unqualified repairers to play about with. I dont think its about charging its about stopping the above happening.
Dennis - 3 years ago
This is infuriating and completely unacceptable on any level. Suppose it's your car that's got a branded title after an accident - now you can't make full use of it and your resale value is destroyed. Suppose you were hoping to save money by buying a rebuilt and inspected car -- now you don't have that option. And what of people who ALREADY paid for inspection and approval to have Tesla turn supercharging back on? One guy paid $12,000 for this service and the next month they turned off Supercharging without apology, explanation, or refund due to this insane new policy. Most of all, how can Tesla claim to be a green car company when they, alone in the universe, refuse to permit this standard practice to extend the service life of cars that have been in an accident? Nothing about this policy is okay. I hope somebody sues the pants off them and gets it reversed.
Alan Sinclair - 4 years ago
My Tesla S had a N/S front wing, bumper and light damaged. It took a day to repair NO STRUCTURAL DAMAGE but was written of WHY I will never know but Tesla decided not to support it . I love the car but not Tesla policy's. Its greed not safety.
Ambulance chaser - 4 years ago
How I hope to sign up a client with third party hs charging disabled...the attorney's fees on that case will buy me a Taycan. Tesla's determined to make lawyers rich.
Sadly, my state does not allow internet solicitation for cases. Rest assured Tesla, I'm going to run across an aggrieved owner one of these days. Unfair practices, tortious interference with business, false and deceptive advertising. Keep acting like you don't have to play by the rules, Elon. I want to buy an airplane, too. Safety as an excuse will mean nothing when the expert reports invalidate the obviously false claim that fully reinspected vehicles are just amorphously dangerous. And he'll, autopilot is already a legal nightmare-around here it means Tesla gets to participate as a defendant in everyaday collision case occuring with self driving enabled. Disclaimers don't shield tesla from third-parties injured by a company selling cars driving themselves.
somebody - 4 years ago
Monopoly at its finest, id say start antitrust and support right to repair campaign
Robin - 4 years ago
After purchasing a used Tesla from a registered dealership (with a clean title), 5 months after owning the car and super-charging with no problems, Tesla removed super-charging status and labeled the car as unsupported due to a CarFax report that stated it had had severe damage. First, the car does not have a salvage title. It has a clean title. Second, we had previously purchased a used Toyota years prior with a super clean CarFax and it turned out to be a load of BS because we later found out the car had been in a massive front end collision. Third, if there are concerns about the car, we are more than happy to pay Tesla to have it certified for super-charging use.
So, my question is...what recourse do we have? The car looks great, it runs great and we have had no mechanical problems so far. It was super-charging for 4 months with no issue and the car has a clean title.
But Tesla says the only way the unsupported status can change is if CarFax changes their report. Obviously they are not going to do that as CarFax won't even respond to us.
So, what can be done? Who do we reach out to that is actually reasonable at Tesla (if there is such a thing), and if not, who would be a great lawyer to contact to help resolve this issue which is frankly unacceptable.
Derrick K - 4 years ago
It is really easy to hide behind "safety" as a reason for just about anything, particularly when the real reason is something else, like preserving a monopoly or maximizing profit. Bottom line, Teslas were designed and built by smart people. These same smart people could devise a way to recertify a car for supercharging if they so desire. They are also smart enough to fabricate dozens of credible reasons for the contrary. If they were truly concerned about safety, they would, for a fair price, encourage people to get their salvage vehicle inspected and recertified. Why don't they? Well, examine the results of their policies. This will illustrate that, rather than maximizing safety, they are actually maximizing 1) their profit, 2) the span of their monopoly, 3) their rarified brand and 4) their elite clientele. This is their real motivation, but rather than admit that, they adopt a rationale no one can refute like 'safety'.
Patricia Chimienti - 4 years ago
safer all around if TESLA is the one controlling the charging and the updates... totalled cars should be dismantled. Tesla gets a bad rap every damn time someone doesn't operate it the correct way and then tries to blame the company for their troubles. I believe in Tesla's technology but messing with the high electric currents and extensive software programs by 'unknown' third parties is putting the entire electric autonomous cars scenario at risk. I have three Tesla vehicles and appreciate the advanced controls and safety products that Tesla puts in its vehicles, more so than any other car (EV or ICE) company.
JOHN MILLER - 4 years ago
Tesla and electric auto mfg's should be responsible for recycling its product using the German system
john - 4 years ago
seems to me they have a legit concern but that it could be addressed with some kind of diagnostic test that clears the restored car for supercharging. Once the other networks are rolled out, it may not be an issue, but until then they should have a way to certify it is OK.
Allow 3rd party DCFC, they are not funded by Tesla and let Tesla Authorized Shops inspect & Validate the Safety of salvaged vehicles for a fee , Inspection CHARGED by the HOUR if need be Connection to the tesla Network need be chargeable as well for OTA & such.
Vlad Grinov - 4 years ago
How can people in Ukraine and other non-Tesla countries buy cars? Car after a small accident is cheaper, and our salaries are small. I still haven't bought myself a Tesla, though I really want to, but the salary does not allow for much delay. Don't bury my dream in the ground, it's not fair
Over regulation isRisk - 4 years ago
Honestly believe I’m going to cancel my Cybertruck order. I’ve been very excited but with news like this reality sets in that Tesla could determine vehicles that hit 8 years are obsolete and remotely disable functionality of the vehicle. Limiting supercharging through third parties of a vehicle is not OK. Today it is cars that are salvaged, tomorrow they get disabled because the model is “too old to support”. So many similarities to an Apple IPhone. Sad about the cybertruck though... Tesla is ahead of the industry on batteries, but thier over regulation creates to much risk to justify the purchase now.
Chad - 4 years ago
You really need to separate the - No, there could be a better solution into the two separate responses. This skews the results, especially for folks like me, who agree that Tesla by default should implement and use this policy, but have the option with the safety inspection to re-enable this.
I went Yes, because it over rides the hard no, but I would have checked, Yes/No, but make an optional solution that allows re-enablement after safety concerns are eliminated.
Rick Hall - 4 years ago
I would be fine with them disabling salvage vehicles. If they would also transfer Autopilot and other software features to the replacement car when an insurance claim is made on a totaled car.
Ross - 4 years ago
While I certainly enjoy RichRebuilds both for his abilities and his commentary one thing is very clear on a number of the cars he analyzes. Insurance companies seem all too happy to "total" a Tesla because they take a position that the battery is toast with little more then an adjusters guess. This leads to Teslas having much higher insurance costs then other similarly priced cars.
You can keep patching together an ICE car almost indefinitely until the body rusts out. Insurance companies and now Tesla are making that a lot harder and a more expensive proposition for Tesla owners. The only good I see is that there will continue to be a greater availability of used parts for owners that want to keep their Tesla running and can't afford to walk away from a highly depreciated asset of their Tesla
Ross - 4 years ago
While I certainly enjoy RichRebuilds both for his abilities and his commentary one thing is very clear on a number of the cars he analyzes. Insurance companies seem all too happy to "total" a Tesla because they take a position that the battery is toast with little more then an adjusters guess. This leads to Teslas having much higher insurance costs then other similarly priced cars.
You can keep patching together an ICE car almost indefinitely until the body rusts out. Insurance companies and now Tesla are making that a lot harder and a more expensive proposition for Tesla owners. The only good I see is that there will continue to be a greater availability of used parts for owners that want to keep their Tesla running and can't afford to walk away from a highly depreciated asset of their Tesla
Rebuilt cars, if done right, are one way into a quality EV like Tesla. New or even not-rebuilt used are prohibitively expensive for anyone making an average wage. I'd be willing to pay for a recertification and then pay for the supercharging from there on. Without supercharging, the Tesla S90D I was considering at $34,000 (paying cash because no bank will finance a rebuilt title car) isn't as useful as the Chevy Volt I will be buying today. Elon Musk should rethink his policy because more Teslas on the road are better publicity than a bunch of wrecking yard possibilities.
There are so many badly repaired and botched cars going back on the roads these days. Many of which end up being sold to unsuspecting people who know nothing about cars. It is great to see a motor manufacturer actualy taken some resonsibility on what happens to there Total Loss Products. These cars are written off for a reason and too complex for unqualified repairers to play about with. I dont think its about charging its about stopping the above happening.
This is infuriating and completely unacceptable on any level. Suppose it's your car that's got a branded title after an accident - now you can't make full use of it and your resale value is destroyed. Suppose you were hoping to save money by buying a rebuilt and inspected car -- now you don't have that option. And what of people who ALREADY paid for inspection and approval to have Tesla turn supercharging back on? One guy paid $12,000 for this service and the next month they turned off Supercharging without apology, explanation, or refund due to this insane new policy. Most of all, how can Tesla claim to be a green car company when they, alone in the universe, refuse to permit this standard practice to extend the service life of cars that have been in an accident? Nothing about this policy is okay. I hope somebody sues the pants off them and gets it reversed.
My Tesla S had a N/S front wing, bumper and light damaged. It took a day to repair NO STRUCTURAL DAMAGE but was written of WHY I will never know but Tesla decided not to support it . I love the car but not Tesla policy's. Its greed not safety.
How I hope to sign up a client with third party hs charging disabled...the attorney's fees on that case will buy me a Taycan. Tesla's determined to make lawyers rich.
Sadly, my state does not allow internet solicitation for cases. Rest assured Tesla, I'm going to run across an aggrieved owner one of these days. Unfair practices, tortious interference with business, false and deceptive advertising. Keep acting like you don't have to play by the rules, Elon. I want to buy an airplane, too. Safety as an excuse will mean nothing when the expert reports invalidate the obviously false claim that fully reinspected vehicles are just amorphously dangerous. And he'll, autopilot is already a legal nightmare-around here it means Tesla gets to participate as a defendant in everyaday collision case occuring with self driving enabled. Disclaimers don't shield tesla from third-parties injured by a company selling cars driving themselves.
Monopoly at its finest, id say start antitrust and support right to repair campaign
After purchasing a used Tesla from a registered dealership (with a clean title), 5 months after owning the car and super-charging with no problems, Tesla removed super-charging status and labeled the car as unsupported due to a CarFax report that stated it had had severe damage. First, the car does not have a salvage title. It has a clean title. Second, we had previously purchased a used Toyota years prior with a super clean CarFax and it turned out to be a load of BS because we later found out the car had been in a massive front end collision. Third, if there are concerns about the car, we are more than happy to pay Tesla to have it certified for super-charging use.
So, my question is...what recourse do we have? The car looks great, it runs great and we have had no mechanical problems so far. It was super-charging for 4 months with no issue and the car has a clean title.
But Tesla says the only way the unsupported status can change is if CarFax changes their report. Obviously they are not going to do that as CarFax won't even respond to us.
So, what can be done? Who do we reach out to that is actually reasonable at Tesla (if there is such a thing), and if not, who would be a great lawyer to contact to help resolve this issue which is frankly unacceptable.
It is really easy to hide behind "safety" as a reason for just about anything, particularly when the real reason is something else, like preserving a monopoly or maximizing profit. Bottom line, Teslas were designed and built by smart people. These same smart people could devise a way to recertify a car for supercharging if they so desire. They are also smart enough to fabricate dozens of credible reasons for the contrary. If they were truly concerned about safety, they would, for a fair price, encourage people to get their salvage vehicle inspected and recertified. Why don't they? Well, examine the results of their policies. This will illustrate that, rather than maximizing safety, they are actually maximizing 1) their profit, 2) the span of their monopoly, 3) their rarified brand and 4) their elite clientele. This is their real motivation, but rather than admit that, they adopt a rationale no one can refute like 'safety'.
safer all around if TESLA is the one controlling the charging and the updates... totalled cars should be dismantled. Tesla gets a bad rap every damn time someone doesn't operate it the correct way and then tries to blame the company for their troubles. I believe in Tesla's technology but messing with the high electric currents and extensive software programs by 'unknown' third parties is putting the entire electric autonomous cars scenario at risk. I have three Tesla vehicles and appreciate the advanced controls and safety products that Tesla puts in its vehicles, more so than any other car (EV or ICE) company.
Tesla and electric auto mfg's should be responsible for recycling its product using the German system
seems to me they have a legit concern but that it could be addressed with some kind of diagnostic test that clears the restored car for supercharging. Once the other networks are rolled out, it may not be an issue, but until then they should have a way to certify it is OK.
Allow 3rd party DCFC, they are not funded by Tesla and let Tesla Authorized Shops inspect & Validate the Safety of salvaged vehicles for a fee , Inspection CHARGED by the HOUR if need be Connection to the tesla Network need be chargeable as well for OTA & such.
How can people in Ukraine and other non-Tesla countries buy cars? Car after a small accident is cheaper, and our salaries are small. I still haven't bought myself a Tesla, though I really want to, but the salary does not allow for much delay. Don't bury my dream in the ground, it's not fair
Honestly believe I’m going to cancel my Cybertruck order. I’ve been very excited but with news like this reality sets in that Tesla could determine vehicles that hit 8 years are obsolete and remotely disable functionality of the vehicle. Limiting supercharging through third parties of a vehicle is not OK. Today it is cars that are salvaged, tomorrow they get disabled because the model is “too old to support”. So many similarities to an Apple IPhone. Sad about the cybertruck though... Tesla is ahead of the industry on batteries, but thier over regulation creates to much risk to justify the purchase now.
You really need to separate the - No, there could be a better solution into the two separate responses. This skews the results, especially for folks like me, who agree that Tesla by default should implement and use this policy, but have the option with the safety inspection to re-enable this.
I went Yes, because it over rides the hard no, but I would have checked, Yes/No, but make an optional solution that allows re-enablement after safety concerns are eliminated.
I would be fine with them disabling salvage vehicles. If they would also transfer Autopilot and other software features to the replacement car when an insurance claim is made on a totaled car.
While I certainly enjoy RichRebuilds both for his abilities and his commentary one thing is very clear on a number of the cars he analyzes. Insurance companies seem all too happy to "total" a Tesla because they take a position that the battery is toast with little more then an adjusters guess. This leads to Teslas having much higher insurance costs then other similarly priced cars.
You can keep patching together an ICE car almost indefinitely until the body rusts out. Insurance companies and now Tesla are making that a lot harder and a more expensive proposition for Tesla owners. The only good I see is that there will continue to be a greater availability of used parts for owners that want to keep their Tesla running and can't afford to walk away from a highly depreciated asset of their Tesla
While I certainly enjoy RichRebuilds both for his abilities and his commentary one thing is very clear on a number of the cars he analyzes. Insurance companies seem all too happy to "total" a Tesla because they take a position that the battery is toast with little more then an adjusters guess. This leads to Teslas having much higher insurance costs then other similarly priced cars.
You can keep patching together an ICE car almost indefinitely until the body rusts out. Insurance companies and now Tesla are making that a lot harder and a more expensive proposition for Tesla owners. The only good I see is that there will continue to be a greater availability of used parts for owners that want to keep their Tesla running and can't afford to walk away from a highly depreciated asset of their Tesla