San Diego Man's $58,000 Nightmare with a (Salvage Title) Tesla Model S

[Alfafoxtrot1]

I find this fascinating.

1) As an owner, I'm thrilled with further proof that stolen Teslas are worthless. I'm sure it will take a few episodes before word spreads, but it will soon be clear that TM can shut anyone out.

2) There is a very active EV builder community out there. If the salvage buyer wanted to build his own frankenEV from salvaged tesla parts, this would be an entirely different discussion. Of course, all TM warranties would be invalidated, future buyers would not be misled into thinking they had a real Tesla, and third parties who encounter the car would not associate the frankenEV with an MS.

3) HELL YES TM has vulnerability to future litigation! Is it too far fetched to imagine the salvage buyer or some future owner getting into an accident that seriously injures someone else? If not, then accept the liklihood that TM is blamed by the victims and/or the salvage driver for some alleged failure in the design/engineering/assembly. Is it fair that TM should have to defend the integrity of something that's been declared a total loss? Of course not.

4) The buyer got what he paid for. If he wanted a fully functioning MS, there's a simple process for that. Maybe he should watch some more Road Runner cartoons. Those short cuts never worked out too well for WEC.

 

[scaesare]

I wish people would not say he did not do his homework. This is a fairly new policy. Salvage cars have been getting repaired and Tesla only recently stopped selling the spare parts and disabling the vehicles. Otmar got caught up in this with his project taking a salvage Model S and grafting it to his stretch Vanagon. ( Pariah | Stretchla Blog ) I'm sure this person got caught the same way. Tesla needs to establish a firm policy on how they will handle salvage vehicles and then you can say someone has not done their homework. In the mean time it seems like it has been a moving target for a few months.

I agree with Tesla, that they need to protect their reputation and insure that the cars are roadworthy, but I also see that if someone owns a vehicle they should be able to repair it and at least have a functioning vehicle that they can bring to their state inspector to verify its roadworthiness. Tesla should not be required to warranty this vehicle in any way, nor servicing it, nor should supercharger access be allowed if they decide, but the onboard charger should not be disabled which essentially just "bricks" the car. I've read the document that Tesla is asking them to sign, and the version I read seemed fair to me. They are just covering themselves. Fix the vehicle properly and they will work with you, if you try to shortcut this, your going to have to do it on your own.

Indeed.. this agrees with the stance I posted earlier when I specifically referred to Otmar's situation.

Furthermore, this quote from that Tesla statement would make it sound as if parts sales restriction applied only to Tesla-specific or dangerous EV-only type items:

While we do sell certain parts over the counter, we do not sell any parts that require specific training to install. This is a policy that is common among automakers and it is in place to protect customers from the risk of repairs not meeting our safety standards."

Yet this is what Otmar was told by his service center, and he can no longer get standard items like swaybars or suspension links that would not seem to require any specialized training not available elsewhere:

“Due to the salvage status of your Model S , I have been instructed to cease providing you with parts. Tesla is very concerned about vehicles with salvaged titles being improperly repaired. Going forward, all salvaged vehicles must be inspected by us or our approved body shop, Precision Auto Body. If declared a candidate for proper repair, reconstruction must be completed by a Tesla-Certified Body Shop.”

I'm glad the issue of "Tesla being able to confiscate the car" appears to have been untrue, but the parts situation seems unfortunate.

 

[alexucf]

When dealerships argue that they protect consumers, this is exactly the situation they're describing. Just in case anyones missing the irony.

Expect to see this story over and over and over again.

 

[tga]

3) HELL YES TM has vulnerability to future litigation! Is it too far fetched to imagine the salvage buyer or some future owner getting into an accident that seriously injures someone else? If not, then accept the liklihood that TM is blamed by the victims and/or the salvage driver for some alleged failure in the design/engineering/assembly.

No one would say Chevy, Ford, Kia, Honda, etc. have any liability should one of their vehicles get rebuilt and put back on the road. Why should Tesla be any different?

Is it fair that TM should have to defend the integrity of something that's been declared a total loss? Of course not.

Again, "total loss" in this context is strictly a financial determination. It costs more (at, arguably inflated parts and labor prices) to bring the car back to original condition. "Salvage title" does not necessarily equal "unsafe".

 

[TexasEV]

I'll buy a salvage title car with an appropriate discount. Sure some risk is there, but as a general rule in capitalism - risk is rewarded.

Risk may be rewarded, or the person taking the risk may not be rewarded. That's what makes it risky. If the reward was certain, it wouldn't be a risk, would it?

 

[KOL2000]

Risk may be rewarded, or the person taking the risk may not be rewarded. That's what makes it risky. If the reward was certain, it wouldn't be a risk, would it?

Thats the problem with the infestation of lawyers in this country. People take stupid risks and when they don't work out they want to sue. No argument written here makes any (common) sense in support of this goon that bought a totaled MS in order to save some $. Lawyers play this incessant game of "what-if's" and slippery slope arguments that serve to stuff their wallets and nothing more. IMO, the vast majority of them serve no great societal purpose beyond making more paperwork and bureaucracy replacing common sense with perverted interpretations of the law (hot coffee lawsuit anyone?).

TM is nice enough to let him reactivate the car and he should just quietly sign the form they ask him to sign instead of bitching like a spoiled baby.

 

[scott jones]

While we do sell certain parts over the counter, we do not sell any parts that require specific training to install. This is a policy that is common among automakers and it is in place to protect customers from the risk of repairs not meeting our safety standards."

THAT IS NOT TRUE

I love my Tesla, but don't start acting like GM.
You have great customer satisfaction.
But basically prohibiting people from doing their own fixes because you won't sell them parts, smacks of "the cost of mechanic labor" gouging, whether true or not.

 

[ckessel]

Tesla's position seems to be that they get to be the final arbiter of whether a Tesla should be on the road based on "strong concerns about this car being safe for the road" (Simon Sprole's wording from the article).

Even if we trusted Tesla not to abuse that, that's not a precedent I'd want to set for other manufacturers as almost anything can be filed under the auspice of safety concerns.

• Fail to take your car in for service? The manufacturer could disable it as having "safety concerns"
• Got service, but didn't take it to a manufacturer certified shop for service? Disabled. Tesla's pulling that right now, telling the guy he must use a Tesla certified shop.
• Not using manufacturer certified tires? Disabled.

If we let the manufacturer define when we can use their product, there's nothing preventing that level of abuse. And it wouldn't be limited to just automobiles.

 

[eepic]

Again, "total loss" in this context is strictly a financial determination. It costs more (at, arguably inflated parts and labor prices) to bring the car back to original condition. "Salvage title" does not necessarily equal "unsafe".

Sure, but once declared a total loss Tesla should be under no obligation to provide any support for the salvage.

They have to set a stance that will protect them for salvage cases going forward.

Consider a case where someone buys a total loss MS involved in a significant impact and some of the components have been stressed in a way that even though they still work, they would have a high chance of failure under normal usage. For example, let's say the connectors and battery pack was dented and some cells/casings have been deformed, and with additional usage would eventually leak coolant and electrolyte. The owner disagrees and finds a way in get their car legally roadworthy anyway. Anything bad that happens would be sensationalized by media headlines and be associated with Tesla's products, regardless of the facts (as seen by the f***s).

Tesla's position makes sense in that they are reserving the right to prevent a car like that from being on the road again in future cases. Someone may end up purchasing that salvage for $80k from an insurance auction, doesn't mean Tesla should be any more obligated to do anything about it. The amount the guy paid in this case had nothing to do with TM.

 

[ckessel]

Consider a case where someone buys a total loss MS involved in a significant impact and some of the components have been stressed in a way that even though they still work.

How is this different than any other car in any other accident in the history of cars? Why give Tesla get a special exemption here?

Why are we penalizing people that want to actually fix things and make them work rather than throwing them away? Isn't that the absolute backwards incentive? Shouldn't we support people trying to actually repair and reuse?

 

[Gizmotoy]

Yet this is what Otmar was told by his service center, and he can no longer get standard items like swaybars or suspension links that would not seem to require any specialized training not available elsewhere

When dealerships argue that they protect consumers, this is exactly the situation they're describing. Just in case anyones missing the irony. Expect to see this story over and over and over again.

Agreed. I've mentioned this before and was attacked pretty roundly, but I've been fixing and building cars for awhile now, and I have never seen anything like what Tesla has going on with their strict control of repairability and restriction of parts to authorized service centers. Dealers are slimy on the sales side, and are expensive for repairs (since they essentially subsidize the sales side), but they provide a buffer between the manufacturer and owner.

I had some hope that if anyone would be able to maintain a balance in this area is would be Tesla, but it's looking increasingly like Tesla intends to be hostile towards anything that's not stock or not fixed by one of their authorize repair centers (which are absolutely, astoundingly expensive). That should worry anyone here that intends to keep the car long term. Further, I fail to see why Tesla deserves special treatment in this area: with the exception of possibly Ferrari, no other manufacturer that I'm aware of does anything like this.

While we do sell certain parts over the counter, we do not sell any parts that require specific training to install. This is a policy that is common among automakers and it is in place to protect customers from the risk of repairs not meeting our safety standards."

THAT IS NOT TRUE

I love my Tesla, but don't start acting like GM.
You have great customer satisfaction.
But basically prohibiting people from doing their own fixes because you won't sell them parts, smacks of "the cost of mechanic labor" gouging, whether true or not.

I was a little surprised by that as well. I can buy any part I want for my track vehicle, and I've bought some dangerous parts. Hell, a standard automotive 12V battery has plenty of juice to kill you, but you can buy those (fully charged, I might add!) from Wal-Mart. Honda sold me everything I needed to replace the clutch in a Civic: the clutch itself, pullies, belts, water pumps, transmission bushings. At 16 I had no idea what I was doing, but I partially pulled the engine, dropped the transmission, and replaced the clutch. I could have killed myself at any of a dozen points, or someone else if I botched the repair, but it was quite rightfully not Honda's responsibility. Nor would a similar situation be Tesla's responsibility here.

How is this different than any other car in any other accident in the history of cars? Why give Tesla get a special exemption here?

Why are we penalizing people that want to actually fix things and make them work rather than throwing them away? Isn't that the absolute backwards incentive? Shouldn't we support people trying to actually repair and reuse?

This is what I find the most troubling. The answers are clearly "it's not different" and "they should not." Tesla is no different from any other auto manufacturer, and the same applies to all of them.

 

[AZbba]

Okay, so this is starting to make a bit more sense.

The car disabled itself when the airbag deployed. This makes sense.

Now in order to work, tesla has to re-enable it.


Normally with a salvage car the manufacturer is not involved. People buy parts, fix it and it works. They do this all on their own. The manufacturer knows someone is buying parts x, y and z but they don't know any more.

In this case, tesla has to actually turn the car on before it will work, so they may have some liability if it is fixed incorrectly, and they turn it on and it kills someone.


I see two obvious solutions to this.

1. Open the car's systems up a bit more so a savvy owner (or savvy non-authorized shop) can re-enable the battery themselves and then sell whatever parts people want to buy. Obviously this is quite a departure form tesla's current position, but it's the closest to what the rest of the auto industry does - let people deal with salvage cars entirely on their own.

2. Require an inspection, but don't require the car to be repaired by a certain company. Something like inspection #1 to make sure the battery/power side of the car is in working order and not dangerous at which time the battery will be enabled and the car will be enabled to only travel up to say 2mph - so it can be repaired. Then inspection #2 simliar to the state inspection for roadworthiness after which the car is turned on.

 

[ckessel]

In this case, tesla has to actually turn the car on before it will work, so they may have some liability if it is fixed incorrectly, and they turn it on and it kills someone.

If that's the case, then it's a small logical step to say that every other manufacturer is liable right now because they lack remote disablement to their "critical" components engine/airbag/12v/etc.

 

[karmamule]

If that's the case, then it's a small logical step to say that every other manufacturer is liable right now because they lack remote disablement to their "critical" components engine/airbag/12v/etc.

One thing I was wondering: how many other cars need "enabling" like a Tesla does in this situation? Is that common with modern cars or is it still a rare thing?

 

[ElSupreme]

If that's the case, then it's a small logical step to say that every other manufacturer is liable right now because they lack remote disablement to their "critical" components engine/airbag/12v/etc.

I'm not sure Tesla is disabling the vehicle. As I understand it the battery disables itself WITHOUT TESLA INTERVENTION in the event of an airbag deployment. Tesla can intervene and turn it back 'on' (i.e. taking liability for 'fixing' the part) but otherwise I don't see how it is any different than a damaged part that needs replacing.

 

[Gizmotoy]

I'm not sure Tesla is disabling the vehicle. As I understand it the battery disables itself WITHOUT TESLA INTERVENTION in the event of an airbag deployment. Tesla can intervene and turn it back 'on' (i.e. taking liability for 'fixing' the part) but otherwise I don't see how it is any different than a damaged part that needs replacing.

This is kind of an unusual argument, in my opinion.

If I program a device to perform a task, and then the device performs that task, clearly I'm responsible for the task occurring. The device did not take it upon itself to perform the task, it was simply following orders and doing what I told it to do.

 

[ElSupreme]

This is kind of an unusual argument, in my opinion.

If I program a device to perform a task, and then the device performs that task, clearly I'm responsible for the task occurring. The device did not take it upon itself to perform the task, it was simply following orders and doing what I told it to do.

Well the airbags destroy themselves in a crash. Why can't a battery have an impact safety interlock?

 

[Gizmotoy]

Well the airbags destroy themselves in a crash. Why can't a battery have an impact safety interlock?

I was simply responding to the argument that was made. This is a completely separate argument. The claim was simply that it wasn't Tesla that disabled the battery. Clearly, at least to me, that's not the case. The car didn't do it on its own, it was programmed to do so by Tesla.

The value of such a situation is completely separate argument which I made no comment on.

 

[lolachampcar]

I pointed out an issue very early on about the lack of documentation on MS for third party repair.

I think it is safe to say that Tesla has as much a software company mindset as that of a hardware company. The software industry is relatively new in comparison to hardware and software companies tend to take the approach that (1) you do not own it, we do and (2) we can do whatever we want whenever we want and you should just be happy you get to play in the sandbox. Apple and Microsoft come to mind although the smaller companies can be much worse.

Up until now, the public has had a right to repair a vehicle. If there are proprietary software tools, the manufacture must either document the test interface sufficient to allow third parities to generate test tools or provide the software to any party for a reasonable fee (pass through programmers for firmware update).

Tesla has shipped a bunch of cars and yet they have not provided documentation nor have they provided test tools (or a spec. for one). They have gotten away with this in part because of the most excellent warranty service and the fact that (almost) all of the cars on the road are covered by that warranty. The other part is shear take it or leave it nerve. As the number of "no longer in the Tesla family" cars increases, Tesla will come under more and more pressure to conform to existing right to repair laws.

If I were Tesla, I'd drop the software company attitude and head this one off at the pass. Unlike the NADA dealer issue, Tesla is on the wrong side of this one.

 

[ckessel]

I'm not sure Tesla is disabling the vehicle.

It may not be a human making the decision at the instant in time, but Tesla is absolutely disabling the vehicle through the automation they've programmed. Tesla has decided the conditions and programmed the tool.