What Engineers Found When They Tore Apart Tesla Model 3 - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 21, 2018, 11:26:48 pm
content: doesn't seem so surprising that where Tesla is lacking is the area that all the other car manufacturers have been perfecting for many many decades

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 21, 2018, 11:32:41 pm
content: The body is too stiff? I know that flex is part of the design, but in general cars are made as stiff as possible to improve the drive-ability.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 21, 2018, 11:36:17 pm
content: Indeed.I think it's the "weak" part only with respect to manufacturing efficiency, since Teslas' frames are what give them their >5 star crash ratings and excellent handling.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 21, 2018, 11:59:08 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on October 21, 2018, 11:32:41 pmonce it is stiff enough for the job, any more is just added weight and cost

author: Zad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 12:06:59 am
content: Not only that, but making a body too stiff compromises crashworthiness - not in that car, but in other vehicles in the collision, or with any humans it collides with. Normally vehicle bodies are designed to deform in a controlled way to dissipate the kinetic energy in a collision. Sure you can make it stiffer, and more protective of the occupants, but it also makes it more likely you will kill the other person, and you may well induce higher energy secondary collisions within the body of the occupants. This is where the internal organs suffer very high G and jerk loadings because the outer body slows down too quickly. e.g. the heart and lungs collide with the inside of the rib cage.Not convinced that anyone who says Neodydium knows what he is talking about. I'm sure his engineers do, but that's a different matter. Neodiddlium on the other hand, that's a different matter, I'd buy that gennlemans a pint and discuss Chinesium tools with him.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 12:27:15 am
content: Neodiddlyium magnets are the best!Well, as I understand it, since Teslas have no engine up front, they were able to make the passenger cabin spectacularly stiff, while having a much more crumply crumple zone, essentially combining all the benefits of both very rigid and very soft bodies.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 12:31:56 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on October 21, 2018, 11:59:08 pmThere's no "stiff enough for the job". There's a reason sports car manufacturers flaunt their rigidity numbers like they do their horsepower. It's like complaining they didn't build the car shoddily enough. It's an odd complaint.Stiffness isn't directly related to occupant or pedestrian safety. One can't extrapolate conclusions from having a stiff car chassis. You need impact tests for that and the results of those appear to be excellent.While I understand the potential issue with building a too complicated car, it really is the results that matter. I think Tesla does pretty well in that area. It turns out they may even have room to build a cheaper car that's equally as good. That should be good news for everyone, except the people who went short on Tesla stock.

author: Zad
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 12:44:02 am
content: As the saying goes, "the Devil's in the detail". We'd need to know what exactly they meant by "too <X>". I'm surprised they can make them so cheaply though, especially given their lack of optimisation.

author: Jr460
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 12:47:45 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on October 21, 2018, 11:59:08 pmHaving worked close by engineers in the auto industry.....You had "smart guys" that would come in and say design this way or that way, and then the old guys in the in drafting department would know what size of fillet you need to put at what place in a brake caliper to prevent cracks and failures. They didn't need to run complicated FEA models for a couple of days on the fastest CPUs of the day to know what would work and wasn't too much in terms of weight. On the other hand a new idea could be tested faster by FEA rather than a bunch of one off builds and tons of road testing. Remember these guys in GM, Ford, etc have been doing this for a very long time.On top of that, you can't come up with something new that they don't see rather quickly. If you have ever been to one of the major test centers, they stick things on the cars so that the guys in tress with long lenses can't figure out that they are looking at the 2021 model of a car.I was offered to go out to lunch in a Bentley. They had one in a garage just so it could be torn down to see how it ticked. The car company never directly bought those cars, but trust me they have one of everything. A brother-in-law of an employee buys one, and then sells it after a month for no loss to the car company is mainly how it was done. They all did it, and all knew it happen. However they were shocked in the 70s when at car show in Detroit, people from asian car companies when would take detailed picture of cars and measure dimensions out in the open.Bottom line, the old car makers have a lot of hard learned knowledge and steal from others. I think Tesla has a lot of great ideas, but they might not have the cut throat attitude it takes in that industry.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 12:56:04 am
content: Definitely an interesting video. I'm curious why Tesla wouldn't have hired engineers from the traditional automotive industry to help them with efficient engineering and production of their products? At the end of the day, the majority of their car is a rolling chassis with four wheels and a suspension, just like every other car. "Reinventing wheels" in this area is not sensible.As far as "too stiff" is concerned, I interpret that to mean that there is unnecessary weight and cost involved that leads to no discernible benefit.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 01:03:40 am
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on October 22, 2018, 12:31:56 amwhat sports car manufacturer do is whole different matter, that is mostly marketing wank for their specific audience who for the most part won't be able to tell the difference anyway.it is easy to over build things, building things strong and stiff enough with the least amount of time and materials needed is what engineering about

author: EEVblog
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 01:07:56 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on October 21, 2018, 11:26:48 pmYeah, but surely they hired some top people from the other to players? The knowledge would have walked with them.

author: langwadt
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 01:09:48 am
content: Quote from: Jr460 on October 22, 2018, 12:47:45 amThey have whole teams doing nothing but cutting up competitor cars to figure out how they build them, how many robots, how many welds, where they use glue etc.https://www.wired.com/2006/02/teardown/

author: tpowell1830
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 01:58:47 am
content: Seems like an overall good report card. Other than the fact that the Model 3 is overpriced, seems like there was no big safety issues.It is odd that Bloomberg has the power to ban the viewing of this other than on YT. Screenshot:

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 02:02:24 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on October 22, 2018, 01:09:48 amIt'd honestly surprise me if they wouldn't do that.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 03:23:25 am
content: Quote from: tpowell1830 on October 22, 2018, 01:58:47 amNot odd, they just turned off embeds.Quote from: Mr. Scram on October 21, 2018, 11:32:41 pm"As [extreme in magnitude] as possible" is a thing that a lot of so-called experts get very, very wrong."As stiff as possible" would be making it of solid diamond. At least among currently known materials.That would blow the budget by an astronomical margin, obviously, and also not be very strong (diamond may be hard, but single crystal material cleaves easily), and be extremely brittle (undergoes very little flex before failing catastrophically). And that, even including the assumption that a solid-diamond design would be made with heavy use of flextures to try to lend what compliance can be had!"Possible"? Absolutely, that can be done with today's materials. But making such a gross statement completely misses the holistic, multidisciplinary truth of the matter, a truth that is real, practical, production engineering.A much simpler version of this, and perhaps more accessible, is that of "minimize inductance" in switching power supplies. It's actually quite a bad idea indeed to attempt it, with modern materials and components. It's advice that came from the bad old days, when devices were slow enough, and boards were only 1 or 2 layers, that you were unlikely to run afoul of it.So, really, what we are after in this case, is most likely:Quote from: langwadt on October 21, 2018, 11:59:08 pmThis is supported by his note that the body is made of far too many pieces, joints and fasteners. It may be very safe, but if none of the other players are going for a crash rating that high, there is probably a reason for it: it's not worth it.Keep in mind, the calculus extends all the way to the life cycle of the product,and of the customer.Remember back when Fiestas were blowing up in crashes? Management made the decision that so-and-so risk factor was an acceptable cost. Lives are worth money, both in and of themselves (a typical person in a developed country is worth something like $5M in productive economic output over their lives -- a statistic you won't see thrown about very often, nor be all too willing to give out in polite company!), and in direct impact to the company (the more important consequence: how much will they sue us for). If the risk is very well known, and small, it is perfectly rational (even if questionably ethical) to make the decision to go ahead with that risk. (In that particular example, of course, it wasn't as well known as they thought, and they screwed up badly as a result.)As engineers and ethical actors, it is our personal duty to make a moral decision on things like this; but remember also, as a company, they are only bound by morals to the extent that it affects their bottom line. Business in general -- law in general -- is amoral, and it is usually but a happy coincidence when the two line up, not a necessity.Back to the Tesla: probably, they wanted it at least stronger and stiffer than usual, to account for the mass and hazard of the battery. They wanted to make especially sure to avoid a Fiesta made of rocket fuel*. That would of course be pretty damning, not just to themselves, but to EVs as a whole, and to lithium battery technologies (as if swelling phones and incendiary laptops weren't bad enough already).*Rocket fuel is the combination of fuel and oxidizer, so that combustion proceeds in the absence of any particular kind of atmosphere. Batteries meet the same description, it's just that high temperature combustion isn't theirintendedmode of operation.But this assurance came at a cost, and probably due to a number of other forces (like poor management and cost optimization), they never bothered to simplify it to the point of being as cheap as possible while still being just questionably safe enough that no one worries about it.Tim

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 03:25:44 am
content: Hiring veterans of the business can bring in lots of hard won knowledge. It can also lock in what may or may not be the optimal way of doing things.Detroit had many decades to optimize the car building and selling process. Each year was slightly better (in some sense - cost, power, ...) than the previous. And then they got their clocks cleaned by people who started with a cleaner sheet of paper and found a better operating point.Musk may have intentionally tried to set different initial conditions to find an optimum point. Not an intrinsically stupid approach, but not guaranteed to work. The mark of a high risk gambler, which does seem to fit his style. If Toyota et al have already found the global (in the math sense, not the geopolitical sense) optimum then Musk will have blown this gamble. The best he can do is catch up, and he will have chosen less than the best way to do so.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 03:31:15 am
content: Quote from: langwadt on October 22, 2018, 01:03:40 amUnfortunately it usually comes down to building things strong and stiff enough that the car lasts through the warranty period before it starts to fall apart. As someone who keeps cars far longer than average, I'm a big fan of over-engineering and things being stronger and stiffer than they need to be. I still have a Volvo 240 which while light by modern standards was a tank in its day. They could take a lot of abuse and keep on rolling, part of the reason that at 35 years old, having been rear ended at least 4 times while I've owned it, it's still on the road.

author: IanB
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 03:39:46 am
content: Quote from: CatalinaWOW on October 22, 2018, 03:25:44 amThe problem there was that Detroit was complacent and didn't learn, or didn't try to learn. Hubris can lead to downfall. The same might be the case here with Tesla.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 03:40:37 am
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on October 22, 2018, 03:23:25 amI'm not sure why you insist on being facetious. I acknowledged that flex is part of a car's design, so even if you completely ignored any context it would be fairly obvious that diamond is not an option being discussed. Taking an argument to an extreme is generally considered a fallacy and bad form. Meanwhile, it's rather clear that "as stiff as possible" refers to a conventional car body made with somewhat conventional techniques, which means steel, aluminium and possibly composites. I may have missed some options. There really isn't something like "stiff enough" the context discussed in this thread, as it's mostly a case of a car handling worse or better. It's a gradient without well defined borders.

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 03:54:03 am
content: So they still haven't found the billion+ dollars they lose ever year? That's a shame. Keep taking them apart.

author: CatalinaWOW
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 04:44:45 am
content: Quote from: IanB on October 22, 2018, 03:39:46 amI actually think we are saying the same thing, in different ways. Detroit work on making their cars better, and making them cheaper to produce. But they weren't willing to rip up the whole industry and start over. For many reasons, some good, some not so good. So they perfected large family sedans that are replaced every two years. They didn't much care about reliability since their customers were going to get a shiny new one before they old one wore out. They cared a little about fuel economy, more about power, a little about cornering, a lot about ride comfort and so on. But they did make improvements each year making those large family sedans a little better, a little nicer. Power brakes. Automatic transmissions. Air conditioning. Turn signals. Power windows. Nicer radios. But once they got the local slope to zero they didn't explore the world to see if there were other good operating points.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 12:51:42 pm
content: Bloomberg and many others, insist on adding stupid music to a reportage as to pretend to be ballsier then they really are!The Detroit dude try to makes a number of the Neodiddlium Hallbach effect so could every other motor manufacturer dowhen needed , surely they can make that cheaper then Tesla.Former Tesla super fan now fed up with Tesla! Almost impossible to find third party mech's they say, sounds like Apple manouvers!

author: AntiProtonBoy
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 01:43:27 pm
content: If money didn't matter to me, I'd still get one.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 02:04:48 pm
content: Quote from: Mr. Scram on October 22, 2018, 03:40:37 amThe underlying lesson, is to be specific, and to say what you mean, leaving nothing to context or interpretation.If you asked a genie for a frame that's "as stiff as possible", what do you think you'd get?Why are there so many stories involving genies that are jerks that do what you literally tell them and it turns out to be completely not what you meant?It's a dangerously thing, a lesson well worth understanding in the field of engineering -- and this thread is as good a place as any to make another example of.What is "possible"? If you meant, "can be done at all, given current knowledge", then I gave a perfectly plausible example, you must agree! But if you meant, "can be done, given budget, time and knowledge constraints at this particular company", you'd get something a lot closer to what was actually built. But why not say so, why leave it open to context, or interpretation, or guessing?Cheers!Tim

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 08:21:27 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on October 22, 2018, 02:04:48 pmI agree but the root of the problem may be that nobody at Tesla knew/knows how stiff the car should be. One factor to consider is that the construction of the body has to be different compared to a regular ICE car because the batteries are located under the passengers. All in all it is a learning process. AFAIK the other car builders seem to adhere to more classical designs where the battery is put in the booth and/or where the fuel tank used to be.

author: nfmax
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 08:42:21 pm
content: An electric car is not the same as an ICE car and the optimum design will not be the same either. Most things will be similar, but sometimes a fairly minor difference can push the optimum through a 'cusp' and you end up with something radically different. Maybe the high stiffness body is one of these. You want to protect the occupants in the event of a crash, but you also want to protect the battery, which the occupants are basically sitting on. As has been said, the absence of an engine block means the crumple zones can be much deeper than an ICE car, so you end up with a 'citadel' type design.Another constraint that ICE cars don't face is end-of-life dismantling. Youhaveto be able to safely remove the battery - you aren't going to stick nearly a tonne of lithium batteries through a car crusher (not more than once, anyway). This is true even if the car has been in a collision. And you don't want to use a cutting torch, or even a disc cutter. So maybe the 'too many parts' are there to allow multiple dismantling options, reducing disposal costs.Engineering is always a compromise - and you have to understand what is being traded off against what.

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 09:09:31 pm
content: ICE cars are also being dismantled. You can't put an airbag through a shredder.

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 09:13:38 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 22, 2018, 08:21:27 pmNow we enter even more speculation, of course -- take this with as much grain of salt as I'm shaking upon this already...I suspect it wasn't a problem of ignorance. They've done several cars at this time: passed all the tests, road tested, even somewhat into maintenance by then.It may be a problem of management. It's very much Musk's style to consider something done and final, and to keep innovating in the next new shiny thing, rather than boring optimization of already-solved problems. Which of course forgets that the latter is predominantly what the automotive industry is about: small variations in a gradually changing marketplace.Tim

author: T3sl4co1l
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 09:14:22 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 22, 2018, 09:09:31 pmOr all the various and sundry fluids they contain, from battery acid to gasoline.Tim

author: tpowell1830
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 09:14:57 pm
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 22, 2018, 09:09:31 pmA little off-topic, but imagine a Tesla here:

author: TK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 09:30:36 pm
content: There was another teardown by Munro, a company that specializes in disassembling and creating a full detailed report.Munro was impressed by the design and quality of the electronics, battery packs and suspension. He found the mechanical assembly to be so-so, but highly impressed by the test drive of the Tesla 3.He shows the auto-pilot (self driving) board and compares it to military and aerospace grade (integration, quality).

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 09:35:12 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on October 22, 2018, 03:23:25 amThis article seems pertinent regarding this comment. Good reading.https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/05/04/the-engineers-lamentThe Youtube comments are hilarious on how they point out some flaws on the video.

author: JPortici
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 09:56:32 pm
content: Quote from: TK on October 22, 2018, 09:30:36 pm@15:18, the entire world's supply of MLCCs

author: nctnico
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 22, 2018, 10:14:26 pm
content: Maybe the electronics are spectaculair compared to the average ECU but if you take a generic video card or PC motherboard you'll see something with similar densities.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2018, 12:54:44 am
content: Quote from: nctnico on October 22, 2018, 09:09:31 pmQuote from: T3sl4co1l on October 22, 2018, 09:14:22 pmThis reminds me of the demanufacturing faculty Mazda set up to destroy the 5000 cars that were aboard the Cougar Ace when it nearly capsized 12 years ago. 5000 brand new cars, dismantled and every single part destroyed to make surenothingentered the used parts market. (Insurance paid for it and demanded this, as well as nobody being quite sure what effect a whole month of near-horizontal storage would have on a car in the long run.)They even had to design and build an airbag deployer.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2018, 04:39:02 am
content: Quote from: tooki on October 23, 2018, 12:54:44 amThis sort of thing really bothers me. It is simply criminal to destroy something in order to keep it out of someone else's hands. If I had my way, people who order this sort of thing would be stripped of their assets and banished from society.

author: TK
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2018, 10:34:36 am
content: Quote from: james_s on October 23, 2018, 04:39:02 amMe too, but it is an accounting requirement. I know supermarkets and coffee shops donate the food that is left at the end of the day, but with cars, I think there is a liability to the manufacturer that goes with it and it is better to destroy them. I don't think it is a practice to avoid someone else getting them.

author: rsjsouza
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2018, 11:35:09 am
content: Quote from: TK on October 23, 2018, 10:34:36 amYeah, it is the old adage: it makes economic/legal sense but not moral sense.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2018, 12:32:26 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on October 23, 2018, 04:39:02 amWithout wanting to get into it in detail, they could not conclusively guarantee that those cars would be just as safe and reliable as ones that hadn’t spent a month sideways (as well as the forces involved in arriving at that position to begin with). Safety is a liability issue, and reliability is a reputation issue. So they and their lawyers and insurance company decided the conservative approach was to make sure they never made it to the public. Imagine if Mazda had sold them (even at a discount) and then it turns out that those cars, to totally imagine a fault, had brake systems that no longer worked reliably 100% of the time, resulting in accidents and deaths. What would happen? In USA, the answer is multi-million dollar lawsuits, plus the mark on their reputation.As a former Mazda owner, it pained me to see those lovely cars be destroyed, but I absolutely do understand why they chose to do it.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2018, 12:47:47 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on October 23, 2018, 04:39:02 amNothing new, they already did in the car over production years of the 1920-30ies. Crushing of new cars was even filmed.Many examples of destroying new cars (for various reasons, not sold, test fleet, etc), GM EV1 1200 built, everyone love that one, recalled and crushed , BMW Active E made more then 1000, newer sold, just crushed , Mercedes Smart ED 2000-2500 built used Tesla bat newer sold just crushed , Honda etc, etc . 1963 Chrysler Turbine Car for example, 55-60 made, shown to public then crushed!Quote from: TK on October 22, 2018, 09:30:36 pmHe compares it to "mobilphone tech" density , whats so fantastic about that? Doesnt make Tesla any better then any other high density PCB manufacturer/designer whatnot. The dude is just blabbering marketing crap as if he was paid by Tesla , say some little bad to pretend being objective then go full bore on how fantastic, spectacular, fantastic etc BS Tesla is, cant even pronounce neodymium right! At least he had read little about Sun Tzu yet then fall into the "let-me- tell-ya" trap he made him self by become the dismisses'er he whines about!No objective analysis about the BMS all japping about component density, he dosent even know if the electronics is made by Tesla or outsourced as he says. Old jappin Detroit man! Detroit is dead as car manufacturing town dude Munroe!Dead Packard factory 2018!

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2018, 05:13:23 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on October 23, 2018, 12:32:26 pmSo send them to salvage yards. I frequently buy parts in unknown condition out of cars with completely unknown history in order to keep mine going. The responsibility for determining a part is safe to use falls on me.

author: maginnovision
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2018, 05:44:20 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on October 23, 2018, 05:13:23 pmThat's not how safety works. You could look at parts think they're ok and find out they aren't. Even morally the right thing to do was destroy the parts if there was even a chance they were defective. Maybe you're an expert but another guy sees one of those cars and assumes it's all new parts. He gets a seat belt and the pre tensioner or locking mechanism fails and he gets hurt? A radiator that had internal corrosion issues you couldn't determine and end up stranded, or damaging the engine from over heating. Legally, ethically and morally you don't flood markets with potentially faulty parts especially ehen they might seem brand new.

author: Nauris
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2018, 05:48:35 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on October 23, 2018, 12:54:44 amGeneral practice at least here is that airbags go as-is with the rest of car thru the shredder. To my knowledge, it has not caused any problems ever.Tanks full of gasoline on the other hand - they don't like the least bit when someone forgets to empty...

author: nfmax
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2018, 05:51:30 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on October 23, 2018, 12:32:26 pmAfter the claim, those cars would probably belong to the insurance company - that's the way it normally works. They get to decide what to do with them, although it was probably written in to the insurance contract that they be prevented from ever being sold. Marine insurance is an odd business.

author: Mr. Scram
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2018, 06:09:28 pm
content: Quote from: T3sl4co1l on October 22, 2018, 02:04:48 pmThe problem with your assessment is that it's proven to be impossible. I pride myself on expressing myself with measure and accuracy, but practicalities prevent us from defining and constraining everything we say every time we have a conversation. Even texts that are written to be as well defined as possible and that are barely legible as a consequence leave enough room for interpretation to need a whole specialised industry to interpret them correctly. Luckily the regular human brain is in essence a context machine and consequently, people can communicate in a pleasant and not too cumbersome manner.I'm glad you referred to the genie stories, because the very reason those work is that the audience understands what's actually asked. The genie then wilfully and maliciously breaks the context. In those days these were called genies, in modern internet lingo wilfully disrupting a reasonable conversation is called "trolling". The fact you refer to the genie stories shows that you're aware of the disruptive nature of your remarks.Again, I'm not sure why you are being facetious and malicious. It may be for your personal gratification, it may be an attempt to appear smarter. However, I have no interest in a pissing match. It wouldn't be much of a contest anyway.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2018, 07:01:09 pm
content: Quote from: Nauris on October 23, 2018, 05:48:35 pmI encourage you to go find the old videos and articles about the process, it was (grimly) fascinating.It’s got nothing to do with safety in shredding. This was not a “general practices” kind of situation. It was a requirement to ensure that not a single component from those cars EVER made it into the used parts market, not even a single lug nut (literally!). So the demanufacturing process was designed around this, and for recyling.I think it began with draining all fluids, popping the airbags, taking out the battery, removing the wheels, crushing the rims, removing and slashing the tires, and so on, until left with a stripped down chassis. Each bin of a particular part was then dealt with individually. It was much more methodical than ordinary car scrapping.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2018, 07:06:14 pm
content: Quote from: james_s on October 23, 2018, 05:13:23 pmAgain, consider if they did this, and it later turns out that some safety critical part had been affected in a way nobody could predict, and suddenly you’ve got 5000 unsafe parts out there, many in cars driven by people who have no idea there’s an unsafe part in the car. (“I can choose to acccept that risk” doesn’t work in this situation. Garages also buy salvage parts for their customers, and cars get sold.) Now when deaths start happening, who are they going to go after? The salvage yard, with its super-deep pockets, or Mazda?And if this happened, and you were the Mazda engineer or manager who OK’d that, how would you feel if your decision to let them be sold resulted in dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of accidents and deaths?Yes, it’s a lot of “if’s”. But I totally understand why they did it, even if it hurts to see it happen.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 23, 2018, 07:12:30 pm
content: Quote from: MT on October 23, 2018, 12:47:47 pmNon-production vehicles (such as test fleets, concept cars, prototypes, etc) are only temporarily street-legal under specific exemptions the car maker must apply for. They can’t be made permanently steet-legal after the fact. From the sound of it, people in the auto industry are actually surprised that BMW managed to get permission to repurpose some of the ActiveE cars in a car-sharing program.

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2018, 01:44:08 am
content: Quote from: maginnovision on October 23, 2018, 05:44:20 pmThen why can I go to any salvage yard and buy completely unknown parts for my own car? Some might look new, some not, so what? Who's responsibility is it to determine if these parts are safe? Mine.Sorry but this is bullshit, people with your mentality have ruined it for everyone, well the lawyers get a large portion of the blame too. Personal responsibility is on life support, safety hysteria is in full effect. You really think that sitting sideways for a period of time is going to compromise the safety of a part? What about a seat? A door panel? Interior trim? Engine? Transmission? Wheels? Fenders? Maybe you can come up with some legitimate reasons why parts like this are likely to be tainted? We have to smash all this stuff to protect the public (OMG think of the children!!!!!) but it's perfectly fine to sell random Chinese aftermarket parts on the open market?I don't buy the safety argument for a second. It's 100% corporate greed, preventing a huge quantity of viable late model replacement parts off the market to protect the sales of factory new parts at extremely inflated prices. It's little different than the way "Cash for Clunkers" was a thinly veiled handout to the auto industry under the guise of being an environmental measure. The requirements were such that it was clearly designed to destroy as many good used cars as possible, true clunkers were not even eligible. If car companies had their way, salvage yards would be a thing of the past, any and all parts would have to be purchased through certified dealers, because... Safety!

author: james_s
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2018, 01:48:36 am
content: Quote from: tooki on October 23, 2018, 07:06:14 pmAbsolutely fine, because it's the end user's responsibility to assess the safety of a part from a source like this, just as it is their responsibility to assess the safety of any other part purchased from a salvage yard, or aftermarket parts from an autoparts store or online dealer.Even if you decide the safety is too critical for certain items, ok maybe airbags, airbag controllers, maybe some of the electronics depending on circumstances, but can you honestly with a straight face cite a safety concern over a switch knob, interior parts, wheels, tires, body panels?The safety claim is absolute bullshit.

author: tooki
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2018, 09:53:31 am
content: Quote from: james_s on October 24, 2018, 01:48:36 amOnce again: the actual end user may have no idea that a potentially unsafe part is installed. MOST people are not mechanics and don’t choose their own auto parts.Quote from: james_s on October 24, 2018, 01:48:36 amNo, I wouldn’t be concerned at all aboutthoseparts.My guess is that the insurer (who likely became the owner of the cars as part of settling the claim) decided it wasn’t worth it to perform a detailed risk analysis on what parts are safe and which aren’t. So then they had Mazda set up the demanufacturing facility and call it a day. This is, of course, all speculation since I wasn’t there, but insurance companies are literally nothing more than risk brokers, and they tend to be very, very, very risk-averse themselves. So they probably ran some scenarios as to how they’d be on the hook if used Mazda parts ended up harming consumers or Mazda’s reputation, and concluded that the less risky option was to just scrap it all. IIRC, the only public statements were something to the effect of “nobody’s ever done a risk analysis of cars held nearly sideways for a month after being shaken around in a ship that nearly capsized, so we cannot guarantee the safety and reliabilty of those cars or their parts”.I freely admit that I suspect the actual risk that safety or reliability was seriously affected is VERY low. But I’m not at all surprised that a big company and their insurer would err (far) on the side of caution, and I do understand why.

author: MT
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2018, 12:22:22 pm
content: Quote from: tooki on October 23, 2018, 07:12:30 pmI know, but point was "economics of crushing new cars", the big crush of cars back in the 20-30'ies was not test cars. Just some month ago Volvo was granted to test their autopiloted fleet on selected public streets. The permit only enables Volvo to speed max 60kmh, no file changes, always have a human controller in driver seat who always holds one hand on steering wheel.

author: Gromitt
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: October 24, 2018, 02:01:40 pm
content: This video shows how BMW recycles car "in house"It's not for the faint heartedhttps://youtu.be/n8AVhj3kZ24