Tesla won't sell me a 90 kWh pack unless I give them my old pack for 12% market value

[green1]

I have to think it will... as more cars roll off warranty options will open up. No aftermarket company is going to make parts for them now and no one is going to learn to service them with the minimal cars that will be serviced outside of Tesla. Who takes their brand new BMW to "insert name of auto shop" for warranty work or buys parts at AutoZone?

Go to the BMW parts counter, they'll sell you any part you want, no questions asked.
Go to Tesla, they'll tell you you can't buy this part unless you have this particular Model S, they'll tell you you can't buy that part unless you're an authorized Tesla body shop, they'll tell you you can't buy this other part unless you hand them the old one back for pennies on the dollar.

Not exactly the same thing.

 

[tomas]

Will Toyota sell you a Mirai fuel cell?

 

[kirkbauer]

The end result is that Tesla is the only auto maker in the world that is currently getting away with refusing to sell parts to people who want to buy them. There are 2 ways this can go:

1) all other manufacturers follow suit and we all completely lose our right to repair anything we own. This is the equivalent of losing the ability to truly own a car, the manufacturer owns it, and they tell you what you can and can't do with it.

2) courts, and/or the government get involved, and Tesla gets forced to play nice with others, stop being openly hostile to their customers, and we all win, even Tesla.

I wish there was an option 3 where Tesla realizes that they are being dicks, sabotaging their future, creating lots of ill will, and does the right thing on their own. But I just don't see it ever happening without option 2 happening.

How do you support your claim that option two is better for Tesla? I'm assuming Tesla doesn't agree with you.

 

[green1]

Will Toyota sell you a Mirai fuel cell?

So far, I don't think they'll yet sell you a Mirai, so we don't know.

Thing is, there are right to repair laws on the books that cover this stuff, and every other manufacturer has to abide by them. There are various arguments claiming that Tesla is immune to those laws for one obscure reason or another, I don't buy it for a second. But we really won't know until it goes to court, and the way Tesla is going, it WILL go to court, the only question is when.

 

[apacheguy]

OK, then don't believe it. Your option. Tesla is trying to convince market that BEV cars are viable, safe long distance vehicles. They are under a media microscope. When road hazard incidents raised concerns about battery fires in accidents, they raised suspensions and added shielding. When garage fires occurred (due to owners' faulty wiring), they added charging fault detection software and lowered charging amps if conditions weren't perfect. Do you think they want news and potential suits of some owner getting electrocuted playing with their battery? It is not because it is more dangerous in wrong hands than cars, guns, or pencils. It is because it is distinctly BEV.

To be fair, there are many salvage packs available and anyone can get their hands on those. The OP has extensive, documented experience working with these packs. I find it hard to believe that someone who bought a pack from salvage and electrocuted themselves would cause bad press for Tesla. The only difference here is that the part is acquired directly from Tesla. Even so, I don't see how the media could spin that story. Perhaps I just lack imagination.

 

[AWDtsla]

OK, then don't believe it. Your option. Tesla is trying to convince market that BEV cars are viable, safe long distance vehicles. They are under a media microscope. When road hazard incidents raised concerns about battery fires in accidents, they raised suspensions and added shielding. When garage fires occurred (due to owners' faulty wiring), they added charging fault detection software and lowered charging amps if conditions weren't perfect. Do you think they want news and potential suits of some owner getting electrocuted playing with their battery? It is not because it is more dangerous in wrong hands than cars, guns, or pencils. It is because it is distinctly BEV.

Maybe so but when you claim not allowing consumers to buy or do whatever they please with these battery packs is "consumer protection" it makes my skin crawl. It is not consumer protection, it is corporate protection.

Doublespeak Doublegood.

 

[green1]

How do you support your claim that option two is better for Tesla? I'm assuming Tesla doesn't agree with you.

Right now Tesla is production constrained has no competition, and almost all it's cars are under warranty. That won't always be the case. People will put up with all sorts of hostile behaviour from a supplier if there's no other viable option. Once Tesla has to compete with another player in the market, and large numbers of cars are out of warranty, and people start hearing these horror stories, nobody in their right mind will choose Tesla over a competitor who sells spare parts, makes service manuals available, etc. Tesla can create good will right now for free, or they can cling to this stupidity until they piss off so many people that they have trouble selling cars once there's competition.

I personally think that not pissing off your customers is better business in the long term.

 

[brkaus]

Go to the BMW parts counter, they'll sell you any part you want, no questions asked.
Go to Tesla, they'll tell you you can't buy this part unless you have this particular Model S, they'll tell you you can't buy that part unless you're an authorized Tesla body shop, they'll tell you you can't buy this other part unless you hand them the old one back for pennies on the dollar.

Not exactly the same thing.

I agree 100% with you. But you can also go to most auto parts stores and purchase aftermarket parts and/or refurbished parts. So at this point BMW has little choice. I too want to see Tesla more open and not excusing them, but do think more pressure will come to open things up as warranties run out on a greater number of vehicles.

 

[AWDtsla]

I agree 100% with you. But you can also go to most auto parts stores and purchase aftermarket parts and/or refurbished parts. So at this point BMW has little choice. I too want to see Tesla more open and not excusing them, but do think more pressure will come to open things up as warranties run out on a greater number of vehicles.

There won't be any pressure. But the price of out-of-warranty Tesla's will nosedive as people realize they can't be fixed or can't be fixed for reasonable prices.

 

[green1]

I agree 100% with you. But you can also go to most auto parts stores and purchase aftermarket parts and/or refurbished parts. So at this point BMW has little choice. I too want to see Tesla more open and not excusing them, but do think more pressure will come to open things up as warranties run out on a greater number of vehicles.

BMW doesn't sell parts to compete with autozone, they sell parts because the law says they have to, and to compete with audi and mercedes, and lexus.

 

[wk057]

OK, then don't believe it. Your option. Tesla is trying to convince market that BEV cars are viable, safe long distance vehicles. They are under a media microscope. When road hazard incidents raised concerns about battery fires in accidents, they raised suspensions and added shielding. When garage fires occurred (due to owners' faulty wiring), they added charging fault detection software and lowered charging amps if conditions weren't perfect. Do you think they want news and potential suits of some owner getting electrocuted playing with their battery? It is not because it is more dangerous in wrong hands than cars, guns, or pencils. It is because it is distinctly BEV.

All technology is new and bleeding age at one point or another. I don't recall reading about other manufacturers, that are disrupting the market, not selling components due to liability. Other reasons like keeping their internals proprietary? sure.

I understand why you think the way you do, and you're completely entitled to it, as such I'm completely entitled to think you're wrong.

None of these arguments make any sense, really.

Tesla has absolutely zero control over what happens with the product once in customer hands. If I want to tinker with the car and end up electrocuting myself, nothing Tesla can do about it.

The battery packs specifically... I have 2 full battery packs (plus 1/4 of another) running my house in my custom solar project that uses them. Others have torn down the batteries as well. Nothing Tesla can do about that either. If I electrocuted myself in the process it wouldn't be Tesla's fault by any stretch of the imagination.

- - - Updated - - -

So far, I don't think they'll yet sell you a Mirai, so we don't know.

Thing is, there are right to repair laws on the books that cover this stuff, and every other manufacturer has to abide by them. There are various arguments claiming that Tesla is immune to those laws for one obscure reason or another, I don't buy it for a second. But we really won't know until it goes to court, and the way Tesla is going, it WILL go to court, the only question is when.

Hmm... right to repair. Wonder if I could order a pack in Massachusetts?

 

[green1]

Hmm... right to repair. Wonder if I could order a pack in Massachusetts?

Probably only with a lawsuit

 

[dsm363]

Tesla won't sell me a 90 kWh pack unless I give them my old pack for 12% mark...

None of these arguments make any sense, really.

Tesla has absolutely zero control over what happens with the product once in customer hands. If I want to tinker with the car and end up electrocuting myself, nothing Tesla can do about it.

The battery packs specifically... I have 2 full battery packs (plus 1/4 of another) running my house in my custom solar project that uses them. Others have torn down the batteries as well. Nothing Tesla can do about that either. If I electrocuted myself in the process it wouldn't be Tesla's fault by any stretch of the imagination.

It wouldn't be Tesla's fault in reality but the media doesn't always care about that. Headlines would include words Tesla and electrocution. Of course if this would really impact Tesla is unknown and unlikely and hopefully we never find out with someone less knowledge than you attempting something like this. As you pointed out you could always go to a salvage yard for an 85kWh and maybe 90 soon. I guess Tesla wants a little more control if ordered from them.

 

[tomas]

Let's separate out two things: the general issue of Tesla reluctance to sell parts... and the specific issue of Tesla not willing to let owner keep battery after upgrade. They are getting deeply conflated here, and we probably need a separate thread for the former.

Tesla won't let WK keep the extra battery. Why? It is either economics: as some have suggested, they fudged the numbers to imply a lower battery price by lowballing the mandatory trade-in. Or, it is because WK's stated purpose (and the only use other than sale to another Tesla owner) is to dis-assemble (requiring skills WK may have but Tesla cannot certify) and use for something that it was not designed for... and they are concerned about the potential downsides (PR/liability) of that type of activity. I wonder if the answer would have been different had the first such request come from someone without a history of dissecting batteries and less vocal about their intent. (that's not intended as slight of WK, just a fact of this case).

 

[green1]

Let's separate out two things: the general issue of Tesla reluctance to sell parts... and the specific issue of Tesla not willing to let owner keep battery after upgrade. They are getting deeply conflated here, and we probably need a separate thread for the former.

The issues can't be separated because they are the same issue. They're refusing to sell him a part. In this case the part is the battery pack.
If I buy any part from any other manufacturer, they never insist on getting the old one back to do the deal. Sometimes they'll put a core charge on something to incent me to return the old one, but that's merely them offering to buy the old one, not a condition of the sale.

Now if he was leasing, maybe it would be different because he wouldn't technically own the original, but if they sold him the car, they have no claim on any part of it.

Maybe Tesla shouldn't have offered to sell cars, maybe they should only have leased them, that way they could do anything they wanted with them (see GM EV1) but that wasn't what Tesla chose to do.

 

[wk057]

Let's separate out two things: the general issue of Tesla reluctance to sell parts... and the specific issue of Tesla not willing to let owner keep battery after upgrade. They are getting deeply conflated here, and we probably need a separate thread for the former.

Tesla won't let WK keep the extra battery. Why? It is either economics: as some have suggested, they fudged the numbers to imply a lower battery price by lowballing the mandatory trade-in. Or, it is because WK's stated purpose (and the only use other than sale to another Tesla owner) is to dis-assemble (requiring skills WK may have but Tesla cannot certify) and use for something that it was not designed for... and they are concerned about the potential downsides (PR/liability) of that type of activity. I wonder if the answer would have been different had the first such request come from someone without a history of dissecting batteries and less vocal about their intent. (that's not intended as slight of WK, just a fact of this case).

I think the two are completely related. Tesla will not sell me the 90 kWh pack (a part) unless I sell them my existing pack for basically nothing, which means Tesla will not sell me the part.

Seems others without similar intentions were also told they can't keep their pack based on what I've seen around the forum.

What it appears to be is Tesla just making the price of the pack look artificially low, subsidizing the cost by refurbishing the original pack, while the actual new pack cost is much higher than they list. So when I don't want to sell them my old pack for $29/kWh they don't make a profit on the sale of the 90 pack.

 

[green1]

What it appears to be is Tesla just making the price of the pack look artificially low, subsidizing the cost by refurbishing the original pack, while the actual new pack cost is much higher than they list. So when I don't want to sell them my old pack for $29/kWh they don't make a profit on the sale of the 90 pack.

If that's truly the case, it brings up two points. First is that they need to set their pricing accordingly. The second is that if they can't make a 90kWh pack for $25,000 then they are in pretty big trouble as that's $278/kWh and their competition can make them for not much more than half that price.
However neither of those fix their hostile practice of refusing to sell parts.

 

[wk057]

The issues can't be separated because they are the same issue. They're refusing to sell him a part. In this case the part is the battery pack.
If I buy any part from any other manufacturer, they never insist on getting the old one back to do the deal. Sometimes they'll put a core charge on something to incent me to return the old one, but that's merely them offering to buy the old one, not a condition of the sale.

Now if he was leasing, maybe it would be different because he wouldn't technically own the original, but if they sold him the car, they have no claim on any part of it.

Maybe Tesla shouldn't have offered to sell cars, maybe they should only have leased them, that way they could do anything they wanted with them (see GM EV1) but that wasn't what Tesla chose to do.

^ This. I own the car outright. No lease, no financing. Every nut, bolt, and lithium ion cell is mine to do with what I please. Unrelated, but granted there are potential warranty consequences if I do certain things, but it would still be my choice to do so or not and there is nothing Tesla can do to stop me from doing whatever I want to the car.

Like I said, earlier. Just like I don't have to sell them my old pack for $2,500, they don't have to sell me a 90 pack for $25,000 based on whatever reasoning they feel like applying. That's just how it goes. I can't force them to sell me the 90 pack, and I don't plan on pursuing anything along those lines. Doesn't make sense for me when I can just buy a salvage pack and have what I need for my project for less money than I'd be paying Tesla.

I just figured it'd be nice to get the 90 upgrade in the process and end up with an 85 pack for my project with a known history, even if the cost were slightly higher than the 3rd party route. Seems that doesn't work for Tesla.

I just find it weird. I mean, I don't own any other brand of car currently except the donor car for my EV conversion project. If I went to that company and told them, "You have this part listed for $X. Here's $X in cash." I guarantee you they'll provide me with the part if it is in stock. Why does Tesla have to make this difficult?

 

[Mark Z]

Let's not forget that using your vehicle's battery pack to power the home is competition for the PowerWall.

PowerWall is 7 kWh for $3,000 x 12 = 84 kWh for $36,000
PowerWall is 10 kWh for $3,500 x 8 = 80 kWh for $28,000
Spare pack is 85 kWh for $25,000

 

[green1]

Let's not forget that using your vehicle's battery pack to power the home is competition for the PowerWall.

PowerWall is 7 kWh for $3,000 x 12 = 84 kWh for $36,000
PowerWall is 10 kWh for $3,500 x 8 = 80 kWh for $28,000
Spare pack is 85 kWh for $25,000

Tesla's choice of pricing is not our concern.