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.
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.)
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.
In the article they explain it. People nudged intel to mitigate spectre like AMD. They looked into how they did it to learn more and found some flaws and responsibly disclosed them.
