Hacker News Reader

Comment by guywithahat | Hacker News Reader

It was a salvage title; basically he was scammed by a dealer. That said, I had no idea they could or did ban salvage Tesla's from the charging network, that's kind of wild. I suppose third party chargers are getting better but the tesla network is a big perk of Tesla's

View on HN

No, it was a clean title. Tesla decided it was "salvage" according to their own measures. I can imagine a scenario where a poorly done repair absolutely can make rapid charging a dangerous thing. But I would feel extremely swindled if this wasn't disclosed ahead of time.

And how does Tesla know repairs have been made after a minor accident? Or do they just yank your access to the network whenever they want and demand money to have it "recertified"?

    > how does Tesla know repairs
    > have been made after a minor
    > accident?

Speculation: It was brought to Tesla after an accident, which inspected it, and quoted a repair price the owner didn't like, so his cousin Bob fixed it, but it's still marked as "HV needs inspection/repair" in Tesla's system?

Article says state says it was clean and never salvage title, just privately considered one by Tesla

"The term "salvage" was a complete shock, but a deeper dive into the CARFAX vehicle history report, which he didn't pull until after the sale, uncovered a "minor accident."

Photos of the damage made it look more than minor, and a Tesla technician told him the repair work as shoddy.

"It was bad enough where they flagged it," he said. "

Article says "photos of the damage made it look more than minor"

Sounds like buyer was scammed.

> The term "salvage" was a complete shock, but a deeper dive into the CARFAX vehicle history report, which he didn't pull until after the sale, uncovered a "minor accident."

> Photos of the damage made it look more than minor, and a Tesla technician told him the repair work as shoddy.

It’s confusing, but the “salvage” label here has nothing to do with the title, which is clean in this case. It’s a label used is by Tesla - which means it’s not allowed to use super chargers due to safety concerns. They don’t want a janky Tesla causing serious injury. Honestly it’s a good policy by Tesla and will help incentivize owners to get quality repair work.

Sounds pretty hostile to consumers. A repair made that compromises the ability to safely charge does represent a huge risk. But what's their process for this? Do they publish this criteria? They say there's recourse for this, but it costs a lot and it sounds like the engineer goes off of "vibes" and not a rubric.

Does Exxon stop you from pumping gas because they dislike the repair shop you used? There's a reason salvage titles exist and are regulated by the DMV and police. Tesla has no business being a middleman here and quite frankly some form of public accomodation laws should apply.

Gas stations have zoning rules and extensive safety regulations to stop a run away car fire from doing even more extensive damage. Some supercharger sites I’ve seen are places like inside semi-enclosed buildings and the like - a Tesla catching on fire in that situation would be far more catastrophic.

I’d agree with everything you’re saying if the cost of inspecting the car for rejoining the network wasn’t $2000. It should be a relatively simple inspection/test of the relevant systems and should cost 1/10th that.

Also, if the vehicle is flagged by Tesla as being salvaged, it should be made obvious somewhere in the vehicle, in the same vein as a check engine light, or more realistically an error message on the UI screen. It should not be a surprise to the driver that the car won’t charge (let alone an unsuspecting buyer.)

> janky Tesla

Reply on news.ycombinator.com