R1S Unreasonably Fragile Roof Glass

[opnwide]

“Too Cheap Not To Fail”.

Except for blow up dolls…

Sponsored

 

[Brownbarron]

I think it was a couple pages back but if my glass roof ever broke I would 100% go with an aftermarket carbon fiber option were it available.

True especially central CA where the surface of the sun nearly touches the roof the temps inside are insane hot. WIthout an optional curtain or cover of any kind. I cant tell you how many people get in the car and say wow what a nice sunroof how much of it opens? Only to hear the reply of none. I bet with a proper panel that has some insulation it would also quiet the vehicle road noise a bit.

 

[Schmidtacular]

The roof is not designed nor intended to be used as a weight bearing surface.




Same shit that happens if a rock hits your windshield? For what it's worth, I've had some pretty loud crack noises eminating from above while driving down the freeway, and no broken roofs (rooves?) here.




Evenly distributed weight? no problems at all.




Am I missing something? What vehicle with a glass roof is intended to be used to support weight at all? None of them. Don't do it. Don't rest your elbow, or your ass, or your chest, on the glass roof. Don't step on it. Don't hit it with your thick skull. Don't carry it up a ten foot ladder and drop it. And you won't have a problem breaking it.

Yes, you are missing a core principle in consumer product design for manufacturers: reasonably foreseeable use and misuse, which I think your statement that the roof is not meant to be “weight bearing” ignores in how sweeping it is.

Any manufacturer who makes a vehicle that has roof racks would clearly foresee that the user may have to put some amount of pressure (not a striking impact, but the type of pressure that comes from resting an arm or elbow to balance oneself) on the roof while loading things, especially larger items like kayaks, onto the racks. That is foreseeable use.

They would and should also factor in foreseeable misuse to a certain degree—but with liability being much less clear, it would be more of a product-specific analysis for what types of foreseeable misuse they’d want to cover off on. Tesla and others have made their glass roofs sturdy enough to stand on, but I’m not suggesting that that’s the standard (though those products would influence consumer expectations and therefore create potential liability for products that are less durable).
Large companies do this to simultaneously avoid the risk of products liability lawsuits and to garner high reviews for quality. Either way, the result is that manufacturers across the board always build in protection against a certain degree of misuse. I hope that helps.

 

[Dark-Fx]

Any manufacturer who makes a vehicle that has roof racks would clearly foresee that the user may have to put some amount of pressure (not a striking impact, but the type of pressure that comes from resting an arm or elbow to balance oneself) on the roof while loading things, especially larger items like kayaks, onto the racks. That is foreseeable use.

I pretty frequently have heavy things on my racks and have had no issues keeping things from touching the glass. Take some personal responsibility for your actions.

 

[Schmidtacular]

For us non-attorneys, what exactly did you say to get them to repair it for free? ?

I don’t generally play the attorney card, and I basically just recounted my experience in line with my original post. The warranty clearly has an exception (defect in materials or workmanship) to the rule that broken glass is not covered under warranty, and I told them that I suspected there to be such a defect and asked them to look beyond the glass at the alignment of the panels.

Beyond that, I just asked them to give me more information about what weight or impact tolerance they designed the roof to withstand and if my experience was something they would agree or disagree should cause the roof to crack. If they can’t provide any information about those specifications, then they likely cannot rule out the root cause being a defect in the materials or workmanship.

So just keep beating that drum until they can actually say they fully investigated it and ruled out those things. Ultimately if they do, that means the roof was designed to be that fragile, and their customers should know that before making that purchase decision.

 

[Schmidtacular]

Sounds like you accidentally cracked your glass, don’t like the idea of personal responsibility and are looking to set up a class action lawsuit for your retirement ….

I get a lot of people have the same knee-jerk reaction that any sort of argument like this is all a bunch of BS to avoid taking personal responsibility for an accident or whatever, but I think that probably comes from living in a country where people are generally used to taking it on the chin from corporations without a real awareness of their rights as a consumer when they spend money on a product and how manufacturing actually works.

I have actually represented as in-house counsel for a very major consumer products manufacturer, and have literally helped them formulate litigation strategy on very similar product quality and safety issues.

Manufacturing is never 100% perfect, and these companies are sophisticated enough to predict and account for how much they will lose on product quality issues. That’s only part of the equation. They also rely on customers to surface these types of issues in order to improve their products when they fail in ways they did not anticipate. It’s an ongoing battle because there are always people in procurement trying to “take out cost” by reducing quality of materials or streamlining certain processes (or cutting jobs and consolidating responsibility for certain quality-impacting tasks), and often it isn’t until products are sold and used by their customers that the negative quality impacts start to surface. This is all normal and expected.

We have very few regulations on product quality in the US—-most are directly related to safety. I’m not saying that’s a good or bad thing, but other countries have more detailed and prescriptive standards for products beyond safety. Our system largely polices manufacturers on quality through the threat of consumer litigation and impact to reputation, and those companies really do make strategic decisions in product design and engineering processes to avoid those things.

So you may not agree with me on whether or not something rises to the level of being a defect or not (it’s not a bright-line, black & white standard for good reason), but you should recognize that those standards of reasonableness and foreseeable use/misuse protect consumers who are otherwise at a significant disadvantage in these transactions because they are not well-positioned to anticipate and proactively mitigate many of the risks inherent in such products as compared to the company who designs and manufactures (and evaluates their component suppliers) those products (and then has access to all the feedback and data associated with product quality and safety).

It is objectively true that there’s not a manufacturer on the planet that doesn’t have defects come off the line and end up in customer homes (and driveways/garages), so it’s hard for me to understand, given my direct professional experience, how someone could so easily offer the judgmental conclusion you have without more information. Unless you know something I (and apparently everyone I’ve talked with at Rivian) do not about this roof glass…

Also, I’m not looking to get into the class action business and score an easy retirement off the back of a great company who has made a truly awesome vehicle. I just want them to fix my vehicle and continue to improve their products so they remain in business for many decades to come.

 

[Tahoe Man]

so it’s hard for me to understand, given my direct professional experience, how someone could so easily offer the judgmental conclusion you have without more information.

It's the because of the sunk cost bias that's very real with some buyers here. - Defend to the end

 

[Whale Blubber]

I get a lot of people have the same knee-jerk reaction that any sort of argument like this is all a bunch of BS to avoid taking personal responsibility for an accident or whatever, but I think that probably comes from living in a country where people are generally used to taking it on the chin from corporations without a real awareness of their rights as a consumer when they spend money on a product and how manufacturing actually works.

I have actually represented as in-house counsel for a very major consumer products manufacturer, and have literally helped them formulate litigation strategy on very similar product quality and safety issues.

Manufacturing is never 100% perfect, and these companies are sophisticated enough to predict and account for how much they will lose on product quality issues. That’s only part of the equation. They also rely on customers to surface these types of issues in order to improve their products when they fail in ways they did not anticipate. It’s an ongoing battle because there are always people in procurement trying to “take out cost” by reducing quality of materials or streamlining certain processes (or cutting jobs and consolidating responsibility for certain quality-impacting tasks), and often it isn’t until products are sold and used by their customers that the negative quality impacts start to surface. This is all normal and expected.

We have very few regulations on product quality in the US—-most are directly related to safety. I’m not saying that’s a good or bad thing, but other countries have more detailed and prescriptive standards for products beyond safety. Our system largely polices manufacturers on quality through the threat of consumer litigation and impact to reputation, and those companies really do make strategic decisions in product design and engineering processes to avoid those things.

So you may not agree with me on whether or not something rises to the level of being a defect or not (it’s not a bright-line, black & white standard for good reason), but you should recognize that those standards of reasonableness and foreseeable use/misuse protect consumers who are otherwise at a significant disadvantage in these transactions because they are not well-positioned to anticipate and proactively mitigate many of the risks inherent in such products as compared to the company who designs and manufactures (and evaluates their component suppliers) those products (and then has access to all the feedback and data associated with product quality and safety).

It is objectively true that there’s not a manufacturer on the planet that doesn’t have defects come off the line and end up in customer homes (and driveways/garages), so it’s hard for me to understand, given my direct professional experience, how someone could so easily offer the judgmental conclusion you have without more information. Unless you know something I (and apparently everyone I’ve talked with at Rivian) do not about this roof glass…

Also, I’m not looking to get into the class action business and score an easy retirement off the back of a great company who has made a truly awesome vehicle. I just want them to fix my vehicle and continue to improve their products so they remain in business for many decades to come.

Man, I was sorta hoping for at least a passing reference to the placement of the Pinto's gas tank behind the rear axle and the wisdom of the court Grimshaw.

 

[SASSquatch]

If the glass is fragile enough that leaning on it with your body weight is in danger of cracking the glass - which is supposed to afford you some protection in a rollover, something isn't right.

Period.

To the apologists on this thread, you need to get a grip. I've driven dozens of vehicles, and at least 2 of them have had glass roofs. I've done lots of stuff to those glass roofs much worse than what the OP is credibly claiming. Your 100K truck roof shouldn't be cracking with the force of an elbow.

The roof in this crush test by IIHS doesn't audibly crack until ~15 seconds in. I'm going to guess they are using more force than an elbow, but that's just a guess.




Edit: And to add - if any weight would create an environment for the the roof to crack, the OEM would be obligated to warn the owner in the manual or somewhere. If someone can point to where in the Rivian manual it says the roof cannot tolerate any weight, I will gladly eat my words.

 

[Dark-Fx]

If the glass is fragile enough that leaning on it with your body weight is in danger of cracking the glass - which is supposed to afford you some protection in a rollover, something isn't right

Time to learn about laminated glass?

 

[SASSquatch]

Time to learn about laminated glass?

Point me to where in the Rivian manual or anywhere on any Rivian produced source it tells you not to put any weight on the glass roof.

Just one place will suffice.

 

[SASSquatch]

Time to learn about laminated glass?

What am I missing here? Laminated glass is designed not to break easily. Tempered glass is.

There is no way the Roof glass on the R1T or R1S should be tempered.

 

[Dark-Fx]

What am I missing here? Laminated glass is designed not to break easily. Tempered glass is.

There is no way the Roof glass on the R1T or R1S should be tempered.

Laminated glass holds itself together after it's broken. That's what you are missing.

 

[SASSquatch]

Laminated glass holds itself together after it's broken. That's what you are missing.

How does that have any relevance to whether or not the glass should or shouldn't crack?

I'm not missing that - I just don't deem it relevant to my point. Usually passenger windows - or one window is tempered so that you can escape in the event of an accident. The windshield and other glass that is meant to take a beating is usually laminated and won't shatter.

The R1T should have a laminated roof glass, no?

Whether it shatters or not doesn't address the issue of whether it should break under what would be expected normal use.

 

[Dark-Fx]

How does that have any relevance to whether or not the glass should or shouldn't crack?

I'm not missing that - I just don't deem it relevant to my point. Usually passenger windows - or one window is tempered so that you can escape in the event of an accident. The windshield and other glass that is meant to take a beating is usually laminated and won't shatter.

The R1T should have a laminated roof glass, no?

Whether it shatters or not doesn't address the issue of whether it should break under what would be expected normal use.

Like I've said, banging things into the roof isn't expected normal use. Put an elbow into any of the metal panels on the vehicle the same way and you're going to damage those too. Feel free to call me an apologist, but I constantly have things on my roof and do not incidentally put sharp pressure on the glass at all.

Sponsored