Dec 1, 2015
Mark Z It could be Tesla Motors' concern.
Simply put, just as they don't want their parts to make non-approved cars: http://cafeelectric.com/stretchla/
For whatever reason, they might not want their parts to power a home.�
Dec 1, 2015
green1 Then they should fix their pricing. If they can't sell the item at the price they list for it, they should list a different price.�
Dec 1, 2015
demundus Came here to say this... One word (Two words?) ladies: PowerWall
It might be cutting edge technology and an amazing turn of the century "thing", but Tesla is still a business; new and feeling their way around the market. Doesn't make it right, but I see their side. I like the "right to repair" law angle.
Edit: I truly hope you get ahold of a pack, because I want to go off grid with a salvage pack as well, been snooping around for one, so your cause is a "righteous one" in my eyes!
�
Dec 1, 2015
wk057 I would almost agree with that, if Tesla Energy products were actually available... but they aren't selling those either, so it's moot.
And most importantly this:
I don't think that can be emphasized enough.�
Dec 1, 2015
AudubonB ...and now, this thread begins to get interesting for certain others.
To try to compare apples to apples, as wk has demonstrated, hanging a 85kWh pack on the wall also necessitates a long series of 8048 Outbacks, and a smidgen of other hardware. Does a set of (currently unavailable) PowerWalls need them also? The gross numbers certainly can shake out a lot differently from what Mark's data show.�
Dec 1, 2015
green1 My understanding of the powerwall product is that no inverter is included, however I'm sure there are some electronics in there that the MS pack does not have. There also does not yet appear to be any such thing as a "currently available" powerwall product.�
Dec 1, 2015
stopcrazypp Nissan does exactly the same for the Leaf replacement pack (they will not allow you to keep the old pack). Let's not treat this as if Tesla is some special case.
http://insideevs.com/breaking-nissan-prices-leaf-battery-replacement-5499-new-packs-heat-durable/
- - - Updated - - -
That's your opinion, but in running their business there are plenty of reasons to list a pricing that is lower than costs. Again, Nissan does that with their replacement pack because they wanted owners to have peace of mind and they figured the amount of people replacing packs will be low, so they can easily eat any losses. In this rare case where the owner wanted to keep the old battery, that may seem disadvantageous, but in the more common case where people just want a replacement pack, it is better for the consumer.�
Dec 1, 2015
kirkbauer I agree, and I believe Tesla will figure that out without the government getting involved.�
Dec 1, 2015
brantse Let's be honest, I've heard and experienced many more extenuating cases in which Tesla has provided exceptional levels of goodwill (above and beyond normal expectations) than I've heard of the opposite. No offense to wk, as I have immense respect for him and what he has and will do, but wk is far from a normal case and one which Tesla may have some justified reasons for being cautious. I'm interested to see how it plays out, but am not about to start rooting against TM anytime soon.�
Dec 1, 2015
wk057 My setup uses the Outback inverters because no available 240/120V split phase single phase inverter that accept HVDC input support off-grid/battery fed use, just grid tie. I think that is changing soon, but hasn't yet with anything available to consumers.
The Powerwall needs a HVDC input inverter to be useful. It won't even work with the Outback units I have. As far as I know the inverter that the the Powerwall would need to work off grid doesn't exist yet (not available for purchase anyway). But long story short, yes it will also need one or more inverters, so the cost differences are certainly not as skewed as you think.
- - - Updated - - -
I don't think they should be able to have it both ways.
If they want to artificially make the pack price look lower, fine. But in the rare case that someone doesn't want to turn in their pack, they should eat whatever difference as an expense for listing the wrong price... not tell the customer after the fact that they *must* sell them their old pack.
If they want people to turn in their packs, list the pack price appropriately and give a fair core value. If the pack was say, $35,000 and the core refund was $12,500, I think that'd be reasonable. Wouldn't work for me, but at least it wouldn't be shady.�
Dec 1, 2015
scaesare A year or two ago at least one invoice was posted here with a 85KWh pack replacement price just over $40K.�
Dec 1, 2015
Electric700 Wk057, if you haven't done so, consider contacting [email�protected] to ask about keeping your pack. You could escalate your request too.�
Dec 1, 2015
brkaus They are probably making some money at $22,500 for a pack. But they would make more selling complete cars and likely need all the packs they can get to sell new cars.
The want to get a "realistic" price out there so people aren't too worried in case they have a real need due to degradation, but don't want to sell them to just anyone for any project. Tesla needs them to sell cars.
Clearly the screwed up by quoting something and then changing their mind. This is ugly.
If keeping them for replacement use only is their goal, they should price them higher with a much higher core charge. $45k with a $22.5k core. Even if they just trash the core.�
Dec 1, 2015
Canuck If Tesla sells you a pack knowing it is not being used in a Model S then it is "reasonably foreseeable that there is a risk of harm". That's the test for negligence. It doesn't take a "stretch of the imagination" to impose liability on those facts. It only takes applying the facts to the law. Plus, let's say your house burns down from the pack. You have given your insurer the right of subrogation against Tesla (or any wrongdoer it sees fit to pursue that is not a named or unnamed insured). That means your insurer will sue in your name to recover the funds it expended to rebuild your home and replace your contents and you have no say in the matter. And I can guarantee that would happen (in my personal opinion).
Again, this is wrong. Nissan does exactly the same thing as Tesla. But there's outcry over at the Nissan forums. It seems to me there's a sense of entitlement felt by a portion of Tesla owners who refuse to see the logic in Tesla conducting business in this manner.
The government is going to force Tesla to sell it to him? Great. I'm going to have the government force First Alert to sell me the radioactive material "americium" it uses in the smoke detectors I own. I want some for my "project".
A simple apology is owed but it's not "ugly". So he can't get this pack for his project. Big deal. It's not life or death. Selling it to him could be. But not selling it to him couldn't be.�
Dec 1, 2015
green1 Right to repair laws DO apply to cars, the DON'T apply to smoke detectors. Additionally, radioactive materials are controlled substances subject to much regulation. Batteries are not.�
Dec 1, 2015
Canuck He has the right to repair his car. That is not the issue. That's being used as a ruse I used americium also as a ruse.�
Dec 1, 2015
DieAbetic Insurance attorney here. 100% agree.�
Dec 1, 2015
GasDoc When a tow driver, using improper technique, creased the rim on my 60kwh battery in May 2013, I seem to remember the quote showing it was a $30,000 part. This pushed the damage estimate of my front end repairs into total loss territory.�
Dec 1, 2015
David99 That's nonsense. If the law could be applied that simple, no store could batteries in general. Or how about knifes or hammers, or chain saws. A simple liability waiver would make the deal safe for Tesla if that would be one of their worries. Liability isn't the issue why Tesla doesn't want to sell batteries separate. They want to sell cars, not battery packs. Makes sense.�
Dec 1, 2015
Max* I tried to explain that a few pages back, it's pointless.�
Dec 1, 2015
Canuck Thanks for telling me how the law is applied. I've been practicing insurance defence law for over 20 years so I needed the lesson from someone who tells me a "simple liability waiver would make the deal safe for Tesla". As I said in my prior post:
"A Release would also mean very little, if you were willing to sign one, since it would only apply to the person signing it, and not everyone potentially exposed to harm that can be done from that battery. Tesla would be the first party named in the lawsuit, as the deep pocket, and no reasonable car maker would allow these batteries to be used for any other purpose than in a Model S. The test for negligence is whether the harm is reasonably foreseeable."
I've sued many big corporations over product liability issues on behalf of insurers. But thanks again for telling me my opinion is "nonsense".
Did you also read this post:
Then again, what would he know?�
Dec 1, 2015
mknox I agree. GM or Ford will sell you a "crate" engine, and you could, in theory, kill yourself by putting it into a go-cart or a boat that is too small for the power etc.�
Dec 1, 2015
stopcrazypp
Not a lawyer, but in consumer laws the use for purpose seems fairly important. In this case, Tesla would be providing you with a pack that they know would be used in a way it was not designed for. In your examples of batteries, knives, hammers, chainsaws, crate engines, the manufacturer and retailer is always selling the item in the way it was intended to be used.�
Dec 1, 2015
mknox But what about a regular old 12v car battery. You could get into a lot of trouble with those if hooked up or managed improperly (the gasses they generate can be very explosive. Not to mention back in the old homebrew EV days, people would gang a number of lead acid batteries up in to packs to power cars.�
Dec 1, 2015
Canuck Really, you can't see the difference in buying a 12 volt battery that has many different uses and purposes, as opposed to a Tesla Model S battery pack?
Also, your engine issue needs the test at law applied to it too. The test is reasonable foreseeability of harm. REASONABLE. Engine = not reasonable. High power battery pack = reasonable.�
Dec 1, 2015
Darren Donovan Not at all familiar. Try staging a public protest against that "elite group" in China, you'll be thrown in jail immediately. Here in the USA, you won't. There are reasons why we have Chinese wanting to get to the USA, Canada, and other developed democratic countries, but the reverse is non existent. Now let's get back on topic.�
Dec 1, 2015
Canuck And even then there are lawsuits. People also think it's whether the lawsuit will be successful or not that is the test when in reality the vast majority of cases settle out of court because litigation costs are so high on both sides. So really, Tesla is thinking defence costs to defend a potential action more than whether or not there will be a judgement. Plus, they could have insurance issues if they sold the battery for other purposes. Most insurance defines the "risk" which could be set out for Tesla as "automobile manufacturer, service and sales". Selling battery packs for use other than automotive could result in a denial of coverage since the insurance was not provided for that purpose.
Again, all just my personal opinion.�
Dec 1, 2015
stopcrazypp You didn't seem to get my point. The 12V battery manufacturer and retailer can reasonably say that when they sold it to you, they had no idea that you were going to use it in a way that it was not designed for. In this case, Tesla knows you are going to use the pack for something it was not designed for.�
Dec 1, 2015
DieAbetic +1. We charge at $200-$350 per hour (depending on the client and lawsuit involved), and the cost is probably bare minimum $5,000-$10,000 (that's early settlement, it'll probably cost $2K-$3K just to look at the full docs/pleadings and provide analysis). If dragged out with discovery and litigation for 1+ year you are looking at $20,000-$25,000+, and that's only litigation costs. We settle 90%+ of cases outside of trial. If a lawsuit is filed insurance will absolutely raise rates, if more than 1 filed the rates go up exponentially.�
Dec 1, 2015
AWDtsla Imagine if a bakery wouldn't sell you cake because you might use it in a gay wedding.
Unless Tesla has a legally discriminatory reason for not doing business with you (i.e. you have sued them), these arguments are stupid.�
Dec 1, 2015
Max* I see we read the same newspapers.�
Dec 1, 2015
stopcrazypp This has nothing to do with discrimination but rather negligence.
A better analogy is for example here where a gun shop was successfully sued for neligence for selling a gun that was later used to shoot two officers.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/13/us/milwaukee-badger-guns-negligence-lawsuit/�
Dec 1, 2015
AWDtsla That has nothing to do with this. Straw purchases of firearms are illegal. It seems they proved the shop owners knew about it in this case.
Regardless, does Tesla require showing your electrical engineering degree before buying the battery? How about before unbolting it from your own car?�
Dec 1, 2015
wk057 You must have missed the details.
Tesla has the 90 kWh pack part in stock. It is listed at $25,000. I want to buy that part and pay them to install it in my car. End of transaction. The part I'm buying from Tesla *is* being used in my Model S, and they know this because they would be installing it.
Now, my Model S already has an 85 pack part installed. This is my part, my property, and I want to retain ownership of it. Because of this, Tesla won't complete the above transaction.
Edit:
In good faith, I did send over a note offering to sign a waiver of liability and/or a waiver of warranty on the 85 pack.�
Dec 1, 2015
Johan Tesla won't sell me a 90 kWh pack unless I give them my old pack for 12% mark...
This is a an accurate summary. And while they never said it directly we're all assuming this is because they don't want to be part of a transaction that ends with you having two batteries and one car (the 90kWh in the car and the old 85kWh in your garage, on a trailer etc). Now I would assume this is because they believe the high voltage battery pack is a potentially dangerous component in any situation where it's not mounted in a factory built Model S, physically bolted under the car and hooked up to the BMS, cooling and the other integral components. I can sympathize with this assessment on Tesla's part.�
Dec 1, 2015
luvnMyTS Sadly this has happened and there have been lawsuits over it!�
Dec 1, 2015
mknox I still am not seeing this pass the reasonable / not reasonable test. A 12 volt car battery has one primary intended purpose. The "many different uses and purposes" have only come about because you can purchase them unfettered. If Tesla packs were available unfettered, I would expect "many different uses and purposes" could evolve for it too.
In many jurisdictions you can purchase a handgun. I think we can all agree on the intended purpose and foreseeability of harm there. If there is this huge concern over foreseeability of harm from buying a battery, simply require a waiver.
But I don't think this is what's going on here. Tesla doesn't seem to want to sell battery packs... which is their right, I suppose.�
Dec 1, 2015
Max* Decorating?
Also I brought up the handgun thing pages ago, keep up!�
Dec 1, 2015
stopcrazypp My point was focused on the negligence. Of course, if you want, here's example that does not have a specific law against it, negligence for selling gasoline to a drunk driver (no law prohibits selling gasoline to a drunk driver):
http://www.johndaylegal.com/25-8-sale-of-gasoline-to-intoxicated-motorist.html�
Dec 1, 2015
wk057 Now that's just stupid. What if it was automated pay at pump? If it's not, does the teenage gas station attendant need to breathalyze customers? lol. That's got to be the dumbest thing I've read about in quite some time.
Anyway, I've offered to waive any and all of Tesla's liability with regard to the 85 pack if they install the 90 for me, so we'll see how that goes.�
Dec 1, 2015
FlasherZ The plain-language definitions in the Massachusetts law exclude Tesla: My P85 Salvage Story - Help! - Page 2
The Massachusetts law uses two specific definitions in the law itself: "dealer" and "franchise agreement", both of which do not apply to Tesla.
If you decided to push that route, you'd have a hard time getting there. Perhaps you'd get the "spirit of the law" angle, but you'd be tied up in appeals for much longer than your car will be around.
- - - Updated - - -
You're beating a dead horse. We get it, really we do. You're angry they called it a "core charge" which has a long standing meaning in the auto parts industry and suggest they will have to conform to the meaning of "core charge" as used in the auto parts industry.
Apple is not required to sell you logic boards for your laptop, but they choose to do it. Samsung is not required to sell you power supply boards for your TV, but they choose to do so. Likewise, in most jurisdictions, Tesla is not required to sell you one of their battery packs.
Tesla is legally required to repair your vehicle pursuant to the warranty, but that's not applicable in this case.
Is it a stupid policy? Yes, but Tesla has a lot of those - as do so many other organizations. But it's Tesla's right not to sell him a battery pack without demanding the other in return. (...and I don't believe "there oughta be a law!")�
Dec 1, 2015
stopcrazypp Yes, it's kind of dumb, but that doesn't really change the fact that is how negligence lawsuits work. The barrier to a successful lawsuit is far lower than people think it is and I tend to trust the opinion of the two lawyers who spoke up about it here already.
Anyways, it's worth trying to see if Tesla bites on signing off liability. I'm not sure, however, if the publicity here helped or not though.�
Dec 1, 2015
GregRF While discussions on battery transactions and right to repair laws is interesting, ^this part seems far more intriguing. Is there a thread somewhere I'm missing or any more details on your plans?�
Dec 1, 2015
green1 Tesla's lawyers, who undoubted know a LOT more about this than you do, very obviously disagree. I'm sorry, you're flat out wrong on this one, as has been stated in many previous threads.�
Dec 1, 2015
FlasherZ If you could point me to their statement saying that they disagree, I'd appreciate it. I haven't seen any yet, despite your statement "in many previous threads" that they have. So thanks for your support in educating me.
I do concede that they have made some service instructions available to those in Massachusetts, but that's significantly different than disagreeing with the position on the law in question. When Tesla issues a statement conceding, or a court judges them, then that's the correct determination, not extrapolated conjecture based on activity.�
Dec 1, 2015
green1 They are complying with MA law while not doing the same thing anywhere else.
Your version says that they just like people in MA and hate everyone else, that seems highly unlikely.�
Dec 1, 2015
FlasherZ You're the only one that seems to be stating I'm "flat-out wrong". And I'll be happy to admit I'm wrong when sufficient evidence is offered that Tesla has, indeed, explicitly decided the law applies to them. However, by attributing their actions to only one of many possible causes, you're committing a logic error. Correlation does not imply causation.
It could be a defensive step taken to *prevent* future laws that could jeopardize their business, without it being a concession that the existing law applies to them. Their activities in Massachusetts may simply be a partial willingness to prevent Massachusetts from enacting an even tougher law that would require them to give up their engineering trade secrets, especially given a tenuous relationship after the court case in which Massachusetts lost.
More background on the court case... A part of the judgment in favor of Tesla in Massachusetts, where the dealer's association contended that Tesla was operating illegally, under laws that referred to the same definitions:
...so even the Massachusetts courts have concluded that there is sufficient doubt as to whether such language applies to Tesla.
An article that talks more about it:
Tesla Doesnt Want You to Work on Its Cars
Has anyone in Massachusetts demanded to buy a part that Tesla restricts elsewhere? That would be a reasonable test that would provide more evidence as to their intent. I haven't seen any, and I would think we would have. Perhaps Tesla will make it a moot point by opening up parts sales to anyone, then everyone can be happy. In the meantime, I will agree with wk057: Tesla isn't required to sell parts to anyone if it doesn't want to, and that kinda sucks.�
Dec 1, 2015
brianman That description doesn't apply here. The original plan was to buy a 90 kWh pack and repurpose an already sold pack. Not the same thing. Not far from the tree, but not the same thing.
- - - Updated - - -
Perhaps we should get Bill Clinton to write the "Tesla terminology" wiki page.�
Dec 1, 2015
FlasherZ That depends on what your definition of "terminology" is.�
Dec 1, 2015
brianman Well played.�
Dec 1, 2015
Bangor Bob As it happens, everything I've read indicates GM won't sell Volt or Spark packs without getting one back either, and will only sell one if their engineers determine a swap is required.
No idea if it's any different in MA.�
Dec 1, 2015
Canuck That's simply semantics when it comes to the test for negligence. Judges do this when you make those types of arguments (without the smile):�
Dec 1, 2015
wk057 No thread yet. I don't plan on publicizing much, if anything, until I reach some epic milestone�
Dec 1, 2015
brantse Rather than using Panasonic cells, how about trying to source some of the Samsung high C rate cells for this project?�
Dec 1, 2015
wk057 I have some rather unusual plans for the battery for this vehicle. Not spoiling all the fun though just yet.�
Dec 1, 2015
Caligula I dont have any Apple products, so maybe someone can chime in. Can you, as an end consumer, directly purchase an iPhone battery from Apple?�
Dec 1, 2015
dsm363 Necessary to bring politics into this?�
Dec 1, 2015
Caligula Did you not see the references to communism, gay marriage, and gun laws earlier? :tongue:�
Dec 1, 2015
FlasherZ I don't see the politics here, other than the fact he held office. If any other celebrity asked us to redefine the word "is", we'd be invoking his/her name here instead.�
Dec 1, 2015
Caligula That's depends on what you're definition of celebrity is.... is�
Dec 2, 2015
swaltner "Hello neighborhood Tesla Service Center. Someone stole the battery pack off my Model S. Please come and tow it to your facility and install a new 90 kWh battery pack in my car. Did I file a police report? Nope, I only have liability insurance on my vehicle, so it's not worth the trouble of a police report and I have no insurance to make a claim against. Thank you for your assistance in getting me back on the road." Of course, you'd have to figure out how to safely remove the old battery yourself to do this...�
Dec 2, 2015
brianman It was the best example I know of where the definitions of commonplace words were called into question in a broad public way. Politics has very little to do with it.
- - - Updated - - -
Exactly.�
Dec 2, 2015
Canuck So then Tesla reports it to the police. The police show up to interview you and find it at your home and charge you with filing a false report.
I know, you didn't file it with the police, and you tell that to the police, along with your scheme. They tell you that you will need to tell that to your lawyer since you can use that as your defence (after he asks for his $5k retainer).�
Dec 2, 2015
Johan Or he could just call Tesla and say: I took my pack out of my car. Will you sell me a new battery?�
Dec 2, 2015
Canuck I'll summarize the last 18 pages for you: "Tesla says "no" unless you give us the old one back."�
Dec 2, 2015
Johan Tesla won't sell me a 90 kWh pack unless I give them my old pack for 12% mark...
Sorry for disturbing the entertaining but completely unnecessary thought experiments�
Dec 2, 2015
Max* Can you summarize page 19?�
Dec 2, 2015
green1 Tesla has no grounds to file the report, it would be them charged with filing a false report, not you. They'd know better.
They also have zero right to force you to file one.
They could refuse to sell you a replacement, but that would make great media coverage if it turned out you were telling the truth wouldn't it?�
Dec 2, 2015
bonnie But uhhh ... this thread.�
Dec 2, 2015
Canuck I never said Tesla filed a report. I said Tesla calls the police to report it, in case it does show up, because they were told it wasn't reported. So the police open a file based on what Tesla told them, all of which is the truth, at least from Tesla's perspective. You need both mens rea and actus reus to commit a criminal offfence. There's no mens rea when it comes to Tesla so Tesla can't be charged with filing a false report.
But the customer can. As far as the police are concerned, they have a report filed and found the battery and even have an admission of a lie. Sure, you'd beat the rap. But saying the police don't charge people on these facts (they charge on much worse) is not a risk I'd take to get around Tesla wanting the old battery back.
But that's just my opinion. Someone try it and tell us know how it goes...�
Dec 2, 2015
green1 That is such a ludicrous chain of events that I can't even imagine how it would ever happen. Tesla tells the police there's a stolen battery, the police ask the owner, who says, nope, not stolen, and the police charge that person? ummm.. no. Tesla would be the one filing the report in that case. (Which Tesla would never do, they'd instead encourage the owner to do so) So if the police charge anyone, it would be Tesla.
Telling Tesla your battery is stolen would put Tesla in a very tough spot. They have no way to prove if it was or wasn't, but if they behave as if it wasn't, and it turns out it was, they have a huge media problem. If they behave as it it was, and it wasn't, then they did what every sane person in the world thinks they should have done in the first place and just sold what they agreed to sell.�
Dec 2, 2015
Canuck I don't see it as ludicrous. Tesla doesn't want their battery in the hands of a thief. They were told it wasn't reported for insurance reasons so Tesla reports it -- all with the utmost of good intentions. I don't know why you impute bad intentions and the press into this. Tesla truly believes it was stolen which is why they call the police. Once again, this is all done with the utmost of good faith and good intentions.
Once the police are involved anything can happen. Someone might even get shot...�
Dec 2, 2015
green1 The police wouldn't even take the report. I deal with the police a lot, I don't know any of them that would take a 2nd hand report of a stolen battery like that. I also don't know any business that would be stupid enough to report something stolen when they have no information about the theft. Even if Tesla was that stupid (extremely unlikely) and the cop was willing to take the report (also extremely unlikely) it would all be sorted out with the cop's first phone call which would be to the owner where his first question would be if there had been a theft, the owner says no and the cop does one of two things, shrugs and walks away, or charges someone. As the owner never filed a report at all, he can't be charged, the only person who did file a report would be the Tesla employee. But really, the cop would be more likely to just tell the Tesla employee to stop wasting police time, and walk away.
Your story is so incredibly far fetched that it would simply never happen in real life. the world simply doesn't work that way.
As for the press, if the battery really was stolen (and Tesla have no possible way of knowing if this is the case or not) and they refuse a replacement to the owner, you can imagine that news would get out, and the media would be all over it.
For that matter, the original owner could feel free to tell Tesla that yes, they did report it to the police. What's Tesla going to do? ask for a file number and call the police to verify? they have no right to get involved in that part whatsoever. Tesla really does need to decide in that case whether they want to risk the public backlash of refusing to sell someone a critical part needed to return their car to operation, or if they really do want to stick to this absurd policy of telling people what parts they are and are not entitled to buy.�
Dec 2, 2015
stopcrazypp Once again as ignored multiple times: it's not an absurd policy, Nissan does exactly the same thing. There was no outrage over that.�
Dec 2, 2015
brianman The unfortunate pattern here is that customers seem to be requesting a lot of reasonable things these days and getting unreasonable responses -- or no responses. I really wish Tesla would change this trend. It's currently bad for the company and bad for the mission.�
Dec 2, 2015
Johan Yeah all in Tesla's policy can be well respected even if you don't have to agree with it.
Also Canuck is right of course, in the preposterous situation of someone claiming their battery had in fact been stolen but they didn't report it, as a means of pressuring Tesla, they would simply say: "First we're going to report the pack stolen, as you just told us it was stolen, and then police are going to want to talk to you about this thievery of an item worth at least $25k (in which we have interest as well, seeing how we would want to know how we can improve security so others won't as easily experience such theft, and remember it's illegal to give a false police report - hint - hint".�
Dec 2, 2015
qwk +1000000
If your old pack was gone for whatever reason, and you needed a new pack for your $100k car, Tesla would be extremely stupid to not sell you one because if that info got out into the news, the brand damage would be pretty severe.
- - - Updated - - -
Exactly. Some of the excuses are dowright silly.�
Dec 2, 2015
green1 And you say, go ahead and report it. You've then called their bluff. They'd be stupid to report it as it would then be THEM giving a false report on something they know nothing about, and there's zero risk to you as even if Tesla was that stupid the police would simply ask, you say no, and your're done.
Tesla has zero interest in the police investigation either, because they were not a party involved. If my TV is stolen, the manufacturer doesn't get involved, and they have no standing to force me to involve them. Same here, Tesla has no standing to force you to give them a file number or anything.�
Dec 2, 2015
Johan Not sure I agree with you here, but it's just a thought experiment anyway and not really important.
You could tell Tesla anything you want about how you need a battery, want to buy a battery, have a car without a battery for whatever reason. The point is they're saying they'll only sell you a battery if you trade in an old one AND let them install the new one in the car. Is this unreasonable? I don't think so.�
Dec 2, 2015
green1 The question is, if you really don't have a battery, will Tesla actually tell you that they won't sell you one and that you now have an undriveable piece of junk? I can't imagine that would go over well in the media.�
Dec 2, 2015
stopcrazypp Given this would presumably be the first incident where someone just stole a battery from a Model S, I think Tesla would be more interested than you suggest. Anyways, as Johan said, it's pretty much a thought exercise as a whole. I doubt anyone will try this.�
Dec 2, 2015
Johan But name one situation that is believable where you could have in your possession a perfectly working car without a battery without you your self having had the battery removed to be sold or used for other purposes???�
Dec 2, 2015
Canuck "Standing" applies to court actions in relation to plaintiffs in civil actions. It doesn't apply to criminal matters. In fact, the police can (and in some cases must) press chargers even when the victim does not want to, and won't cooperate. Often criminal cases are presented by way of third parties who inadvertently become involved.
I have seen many times when people report a theft to an insurer but not the police (for obvious reasons). You're telling me the police don't take that report since the insurer has no standing? Nice try. Not only do they take it but they investigate to determine if the theft is legitimate or not and the reason for not reporting. I've been involved in this first hand -- not through "friends". It's best at that time for people who claim false thefts to come clean with the police and admit the lie since lying to the police about that theft could easily result in a charge.
And as others have said, of course Tesla would report it. To think otherwise is ludicrous.�
Dec 2, 2015
green1 They might be interested, without having official status as an "interested party". Just because they want to know doesn't entitle them to knowing.
- - - Updated - - -
Well, it's designed to be removed in under 3 minutes with no access to the interior of the vehicle and is worth $20,000... I can think of a situation that could result in you no longer having it.
There are other ways too. road debris (the titanium shield is probably not 100% infallible) mistakes like trying to drive through a bus trap and landing on it, being towed improperly, there are many ways to damage something that covers the whole bottom of the car.
- - - Updated - - -
You're referring to insurance fraud. The police would charge you with that, not with filing a false police report, as you did not in fact file one. you also wouldn't be lying to the police, you'd be lying to Tesla, which is not a crime. Nowhere in any of the posts has anyone (other than yourself) talked about lying to the police.�
Dec 2, 2015
Johan And if this situation did if fact occur (I assume you mean actual battery theft) you really think Tesla wouldn't push to have this reported to the police, regardless of your willingness to report it?!?�
Dec 2, 2015
green1 They can push all they want. You can even do so, or not, at your discretion. Tesla will have no way of knowing if you did or not unless you choose to tell them. Will they refuse you service unless you provide them the police file number? They have no right to that information.�
Dec 2, 2015
Canuck You twist everything I say. I never said lying to Tesla was a crime. I said "It's best at that time for people who claim false thefts to come clean with the police and admit the lie since lying to the police about that theft could easily result in a charge." Got it now?
To think the police would have no interest in a call from Tesla advising that a $40k battery was stolen and not reported, simply because Tesla reported it by way of second hand information, is simply not true. Please, ask your police friends if they got a call from Tesla saying they sell extremely high powered and dangerous battery packs that are worth ~$40k and they pass along this information (from the original post):
"Hello neighborhood Tesla Service Center. Someone stole the battery pack off my Model S. Did I file a police report? Nope, I only have liability insurance on my vehicle, so it's not worth the trouble of a police report and I have no insurance to make a claim against."
Would their response be, "sorry sir, we can't help you." Or would it be:
Reporting a crime � useful information:
- Anyone who is aware that a crime has been committed can report it. It is not essential for you to have been personally affected by the crime.
- You can report a crime even if you do not know who committed it.
https://www.ch.ch/en/reporting-someone-police-filing-report/�
Dec 2, 2015
green1 As stated repeatedly, if their stupid, they'd file a false police report. If they're smart they'll sell you a battery pack. I'm done here.�
Dec 2, 2015
wk057 um... is this the same thread I started a couple of days ago? lol Not sure what we're going on about here.
Anyway, still waiting to hear back from Tesla on the verdict after offering to sign some waivers.�
Dec 2, 2015
Max* The irony...
- - - Updated - - -
We're debating stealing your battery. Or I think that's what the thread is about now.�
Dec 2, 2015
mikeash Clearly, we should move past debating and make it actually happen. Think about it: stealing his battery is the perfect solution. He can buy a new battery from Tesla without selling the old one back. We'll launder the stolen goods a bit, then sell the battery back to him for cheap. We make a tidy profit, he gets his spare battery, and Tesla makes a nice profit selling the new battery. It's win-win-win.
wk057: obviously, forget you saw anything here, since you don't want to know too much. Just start making a habit of leaving your car out in the open where it's easy to get to. And, obviously, leave the alarm off.�
Dec 2, 2015
bonnie This will not end well.�
Dec 2, 2015
AudubonB Well, maybe I know someone whose uncle's first girlfriend is related to a Moderator who might evince an interest in considering locking this thread in order to forestall any possibility of inciting felonious actions.
Just saying.
In a Mild-Mannered Way.�
Dec 2, 2015
wk057 lol. You folks are a trip. :tongue:�
Dec 2, 2015
Canuck Ha!�
Dec 2, 2015
EarlyAdopter LOL. I'm pretty sure if you tried the "someone stole my battery" ruse, the first thing Tesla would ask is where. Your answer? "My garage?" "The auto shop down the street with a lift and an engine hoist?" Ha.
I'm pretty sure a "battery removed" event will stand out pretty clearly in your car's logs, which no doubt are geotagged.
But yeah, fanciful thinking.�
Dec 2, 2015
sorka If this goes forward, are they going to rebadge it P90D?�
Dec 3, 2015
LetsGoFast What if you just removed the battery and dissassembled it for some other purpose? Why go through the charade of lying about a theft? Tell Tesla you need to buy a new one and freely admit what happened to the old one. Will they then refuse to repair it or sell you a new battery? I've scavenged hundreds, maybe thousands of parts from cars that I owned to use on other vehicles or even for Rube Goldberg contraptions of my own. I've never heard of a company refusing to sell me a part because they don't like how I used the old one.�
Dec 3, 2015
wk057 They would rebadge it P90D, without the underline, unless I pay them the $5k for Ludicrous, which I'm not sure I will.�
Dec 3, 2015
Andyw2100 I still think that if you were to move forward with this, the "correct" price that you should pay for Ludicrous should be less than $5K, since significantly less work would be involved in upgrading your new 90 battery than would have been required to upgrade your 85 battery. The $5000 price has some labor component built into it. If you move forward, and are interested in the Ludicrous upgrade, you should try to negotiate that $5000 figure.�
Dec 3, 2015
andrewket ok, so I give. I've read a few pages of posts, but not all, and I can't answer this simple question: Did you or did you not come to a pricing agreement with Tesla? It sounds like you're keeping your 85kWh pack, which at the beginning of the thread was not the case. Then there are pages upon pages of coming up with some scam to trick Tesla into selling you a pack, which started to make a point but progressed just a *little* too far imho. How about an executive summary on the current status?�
Dec 3, 2015
scott jones I think most people are forgetting what this all boils down to and AWDtsla said it best: 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.
When your warranty runs out what will you do? As James T Kirk once said: What of Lazarus... What of Lazarus?�
Dec 3, 2015
Twiglett I think what most of us are forgetting is what the original post was about - not that this happens, ever, on here :biggrin:�
Dec 3, 2015
stopcrazypp That has nothing to do with this thread, where the issue is with trying to buy a new battery while keeping your old one. Tesla has no problem selling you a battery if you turn in your old one (as it will be in a vast majority of cases).�
Dec 3, 2015
NOLA_Mike From someone who has read every post in this thread here is the Summary as I see it:
Jason wants a good 85 kWh battery for his own personal project
Jason decided instead of just buying an 85 battery outright why not just go ahead and upgrade his car to the 90 kWh battery and then keep his old battery (with known history) for his project
Jason spoke with someone at Tesla and got a price of $25k to upgrade his car to the 90
Jason's contact at Tesla said he could keep his old battery but would forfeit a $2500 core charge in doing so
Jason decided to go ahead with this deal but when he spoke with Tesla about moving ahead they informed him that the deal was off - the only way they would sell him the 90 kWh battery was if they took the old 85 kWh battery in exchange
Jason is not happy
Jason has offered to sign a waiver absolving Tesla of any liability if they allow him to keep his old battery and is waiting to hear back on whether this will fly or not
the end�
Dec 3, 2015
wk057 I certainly feel the same way, but I did inquire about this. Initially I was actually told that since my car would then be a P90D that I would have to pay the full $10,000 to upgrade to Ludicrous. Eventually they decided that I could do so for $5,000. In both cases it would be a matter of flipping a software switch, which is not something I believe I'm willing to pay $5,000 for.
They specifically said many times that the Ludicrous upgrade would have to be handled independently of the pack upgrade, even though the pack upgrade physically includes everything needed for the upgrade besides flipping a software switch. They even went so far as to say that I couldn't even get both upgrades done at the same time and would still have to wait until the P85D Ludicrous upgrades were available in my area before I could do it.
Overall, it makes absolutely no sense to me.
NOLA_Mike's summary is pretty good (thanks). I made a few notes inline (italics):
In any case, under no circumstances would I sell Tesla my 85 pack for $2,500, so if I can't keep the old pack I won't be doing the 90 upgrade.
I'm going to give them a little more time to try and sort the whole thing out. In the meantime if I find a deal on a salvage pack before they get their act together, I'm just going to take it and be done with this. Pretty sure the only party poised to lose out at all is Tesla, since I'll be fine either way.
They're seriously the only company I've ever dealt with that just doesn't seem to like making money sometimes. lol.�
Dec 3, 2015
MitchJi
There is no way that the pack costs Tesla $25k! That's the same price they charge for the 100kWH Powerpas (retail) with the high cycle count cells (the high energy density cells that are "very similar to the car packs" cost about 20% less. The enclosures are more complex too, hot swappable trays and that includes a 20% (or 15% if you believe in the tooth fairy) margin.
�
Dec 3, 2015
wk057 Oh no, I don't for a second think the pack costs Tesla $25k or more. They may not have a high margin at that price, though, but I highly doubt they'd be losing money selling it for $25k.�
Dec 3, 2015
ChadFeldheimer Hello. I said underpriced, not (necessarily) under cost.
But you raise a good point. Perhaps wk can just buy a powerpack for the same 25k and get 10kwh extra to boot!�
Dec 3, 2015
MitchJi Their margin has to be at least 30-40%.�
Dec 3, 2015
scott jones Originally Posted by scott jones
I think most people are forgetting what this all boils down to and AWDtsla said it best: 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.
When your warranty runs out what will you do? As James T Kirk once said: What of Lazarus... What of Lazarus?
Because you talked down to me, I'll return the favor. It has everything to do with this thread if you can extrapolate like AWDTsla and others have done. I'll start you off: Being able to buy parts outright... Regardless of the reason... Once your car is out of warranty .... you'll need to�
![[?IMG]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_vFnqFmuihdu94RxTqfs_UT1wGFgAGMDVH3707SeARqtwp4uz22iJt0pP7P2U6o2M7k67NjDbfI9WxjyIhX1g5LhUtzVm72gCe9GB9W2KXLn4j68vVuPuJzsR6dBNqYEUQoTI8czgq6FuKSh-xyRVHCE0tnWAE5hnpTJtfV9Jv5SLsd4NmbkK4CjXy8z15oQuaRgqHh_WrOqIO_1dIBR7v6DgG_GEOpxxQyFBe4tiRPz01cH0n1Ha4rjzcLodnbqHoXMWjrEywNyXSA1O32KbrvWbR00wfvFfdYKg3NQt4=s0-d)
Dec 3, 2015
David99 To be fair, Tesla is willing to sell you a battery. If you have an out of warranty car and your battery goes bad you can buy a new one from Tesla. Having to give the old one back makes it a bad deal for sure at $25k. No doubt about it. But it's not like that you can't get a new battery at all. Let's say in 6 years from now when the first cars fall out of warranty, I'm pretty sure Tesla won't charge you $25k for a replacement 85 kW battery. It will be much less. The $25k are for the brand new 90 battery that just came out and is the top of the line battery. Tesla won't screw over the first owners.�
Dec 3, 2015
stopcrazypp Sorry, I didn't mean to give the impression of talking down. I apologize if I did. Basically I disagreed with your point and David below touched on the reason (I won't argue further as I don't want to be antagonizing).�
Dec 5, 2015
scott jones No problem, I was probably a bit quick to reply. It's all good. My concern is lack of ability to get parts if ever needed, lack of competition with the service monopoly, etc�
Dec 5, 2015
Drucifer Ludicrous includes hardware changes including changing the contactors to inconel contactors and a few other items I am not recalling. I agree that while inconel is an expensive alloy, it isn't gold or platinum and the price is pretty high (although I am sure there is some R&D cost recovery baked into the number).�
Dec 5, 2015
wk057 The 90 kWh packs already include these changes. So buying the pack gets the hardware too, just not the software switch.�
Dec 5, 2015
bonnie I've never understood why people think software updates should be cheap, just because it's only 'flipping a switch' - hardware amortizes the r&d costs into the price, why not software?
(sorry, just a stray button that got pressed here ...)�
Dec 5, 2015
kennybobby Is that true for the Roadster too?�
Dec 5, 2015
wk057 For the normal upgrade, part of the $5000 includes the physical hardware, and part of the $5000 is the labor to remove my pack from the car (manually, no 90 second swap equipment), open it (a royal pain the butt even with the appropriate tools because pack v1.x wasn't designed to be serviceable easily), replace the contactors, replace the fuse (probably the easiest part), replace some other miscellaneous components inside the pack, re-seal it (probably the hardest part), replace the fire blanket that goes on top (these are apparently one time use), pressure test it, reinstall it in my car (again, manually), do the software flip, and validate the process has worked. So, IMO the $5000 is pretty justified in that case if that's what I wanted. This is easily 8 hours of labor for a two man team, from what I've heard.
For the 90 pack swap, the $25k price is for a pack that includes the hardware changes already. The new contactors and fuse are already installed, so no opening of the pack is needed. This changes the labor portion from a full work-day of labor or more to 90 minutes or so. Then if I wanted Ludicrous, I already have all of the hardware, paid for the labor for it to be installed, and the $5000 is literally for the software switch flip.
Me personally, I can't justify paying $5000 in either scenario, but especially not in the latter one.
In general, sure software updates don't have to be cheap. In this particular case (second scenario above) there isn't much excuse for why it shouldn't be at least discounted by the amount of labor saved.�
Dec 5, 2015
bonnie Yep. They circled back and, in addition to just battery replacement/repair, are offering an extended range battery option. How many car manufacturers go back and offer upgrades to customers with older cars?�
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét