I share your concern with the lack of repairability and fully admit I'd never buy a Tesla. However, I think this depends on your definition of what a "minor" accident is. Generally, accidents that surpass cosmetic damage and cause frame damage (even in ICE vehicles) warrant a near write off or a problem that compromises any chance of re-selling a vehicle. For instance, damage to suspension linkages / steering column or a minor bend in the frame or A pillar of a vehicle.
I think the biggest consideration here is the fire / electrical risk of a slightly damaged or questionably compromised battery pack (structural or otherwise). In time, insurance companies / providers will likely adjust their actuarial math to compensate for battery risks or more generally long term risks of post-accident Ev's. It'll be interesting to see how the buy back numbers look - a structural battery might actually leave more cells / components intact for re-sale / scrapping or recycling in comparison to ICE vehicles which are generally just priced for their scrap value by weight.
Again, I'll never buy a tesla - I'm driving my ICE VW GTI with a manual transmission into the ground.
> I think the biggest consideration here is the fire / electrical risk of a slightly damaged or questionably compromised battery pack (structural or otherwise).
Indeed, and it's very precarious lack of any fusing, and other safety measures inside the Tesla battery pack besides fusible cell leads.
I believe most other saner EV makers will surely adddress this, if they didn't do so already.
Alternatively, BYD got very well positioned here with its own structural battery.
LFP cells are safe enough that they even use them as a crumple zone to dissipate crash energy.
This allows them to save weight even more on battery structure, as they don't have to protect it at all costs.
Having an effectively "free" crumple zone is a huge weight saver.
7 comments
[ 1.5 ms ] story [ 21.5 ms ] threadTo me it seems like Tesla is going ahead and build a car in such a way that even after a minor accident you can throw the entire car in the trash.
Sure it makes it cheaper for Tesla to produce such parts but for the environment which they claim as saving this is a horrible idea IMO.
Its repairability score: 0.0. Welding aluminium is extremely hard, and specialty alloys even more so.
And nobody else will be able to make exact replacements without same very expensive, one of a kind tooling.
On other hand, lots of cash for Tesla from making spare parts.
Indeed, an Iphone on wheels.
I think the biggest consideration here is the fire / electrical risk of a slightly damaged or questionably compromised battery pack (structural or otherwise). In time, insurance companies / providers will likely adjust their actuarial math to compensate for battery risks or more generally long term risks of post-accident Ev's. It'll be interesting to see how the buy back numbers look - a structural battery might actually leave more cells / components intact for re-sale / scrapping or recycling in comparison to ICE vehicles which are generally just priced for their scrap value by weight.
Again, I'll never buy a tesla - I'm driving my ICE VW GTI with a manual transmission into the ground.
Indeed, and it's very precarious lack of any fusing, and other safety measures inside the Tesla battery pack besides fusible cell leads.
I believe most other saner EV makers will surely adddress this, if they didn't do so already.
Alternatively, BYD got very well positioned here with its own structural battery.
LFP cells are safe enough that they even use them as a crumple zone to dissipate crash energy.
This allows them to save weight even more on battery structure, as they don't have to protect it at all costs.
Having an effectively "free" crumple zone is a huge weight saver.
The problem with tiny cylinder cells is that you need a lot of structural support, and that does not contribute to overall load/rigidity of the car.
I guess the issue was accute enough with cylindrical cells to mandate such drastic design decisions.