Glare from side repeaters in blind spot camera?

[Tronguy]

Can these be swapped by ourselves and save $60?

No idea. The correct answer is, probably. If one lives in Massachusetts, where they have a right-to-repair law, I presume the repair manuals are handy.
If it was just lights, I'd think it was no problem. But there's some oddball business about the calibration of the cameras, so, dunno.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The complete part number was 1495865-20-C or 1495864-20-C? The glare looks like it does here?

View attachment 761419

I'll chime in also, I have a 2021 Model 3 (delivered end of 2020). I just went out to test my cameras (the models are 1495865-20-C and 1495864-20-C, I took pictures when I removed them for PPF) with tape over the camera and it's the same thing, glare like the picture you show.

So the C model (at least in the US) does not have it fixed. Did you test the C model (with the redesigned board) to see if maybe it also still has glare even though the holes are gone?

So far only the newest D model appears to guarantee to fix the issue.

 

[Tevo Solutions]

Can these be swapped by ourselves and save $60?

Yes, of course. Just make sure you carry out a camera calibration after. Also, immediately after you replace a camera it won't come up on screen immediately. You have to close the door so the car powers down and leave it for 5 minutes.

 

[Tevo Solutions]

I'll chime in also, I have a 2021 Model 3 (delivered end of 2020). I just went out to test my cameras (the models are 1495865-20-C and 1495864-20-C, I took pictures when I removed them for PPF) with tape over the camera and it's the same thing, glare like the picture you show.

So the C model (at least in the US) does not have it fixed. Did you test the C model (with the redesigned board) to see if maybe it also still has glare even though the holes are gone?

So far only the newest D model appears to guarantee to fix the issue.

I think you could be right that it's not fixed on the -C part. I'm going to test again today.

 

[Seminole]

I think you could be right that it's not fixed on the -C part. I'm going to test again today.

Does the C part still have glue on it? When watching your video it looks like on the even earlier revisions after covering the holes the glue could still let some glare through. When the guy comes to replace the broken D revision that I have I’ll see if I could keep it so I can open it up and take pictures. But I was told I couldn’t keep the C because it was a warranty fix so I don’t know what they’ll say.

 

[android04]

Hmm..

Does that mean the trim is actually something you can remove and replace? I have a chrome trim car (2020) which is currently dechromed (with vinyl, not a cap - so not something that can be transferred even if it fit), but if I ever came to sell it, particularly trading in to Tesla, I presume I'd have to get it removed, at which point having black indicator cameras and chrome trim would be a bit odd. At the same time I don't particularly want to have to buy chrome trim on top of the camera just to then dechrome it afterwards, if that makes sense.

I presume you didn't discuss warranty replacements, etc?

Thanks for taking the time to dig in to this.

Not sure if you ever got an answer to this and I don't want to read through the whole thread to find out. But the answer is yes. You can park off the chrome cap from your older repeaters. I just removed mine on my March 2018 Model 3 with chrome repeaters to do the mods to it, and was able to pry off the chrome covers. One of them had a few tiny patches of the double sided adhesive left over, but you can use a Goof Off or similar product to get the remainder off.

 

[Tevo Solutions]

Not sure if you ever got an answer to this and I don't want to read through the whole thread to find out. But the answer is yes. You can park off the chrome cap from your older repeaters. I just removed mine on my March 2018 Model 3 with chrome repeaters to do the mods to it, and was able to pry off the chrome covers. One of them had a few tiny patches of the double sided adhesive left over, but you can use a Goof Off or similar product to get the remainder off.

I'm surprised you didn't damage it. They're really thin and easy to bend. I couldn't get the one off my sample without damage.

 

[Durzel]

Not sure if you ever got an answer to this and I don't want to read through the whole thread to find out. But the answer is yes. You can park off the chrome cap from your older repeaters. I just removed mine on my March 2018 Model 3 with chrome repeaters to do the mods to it, and was able to pry off the chrome covers. One of them had a few tiny patches of the double sided adhesive left over, but you can use a Goof Off or similar product to get the remainder off.

Thanks. I didn’t get an answer.

What I am curious about, and haven’t yet seen an answer, is whether the camera assembly (1495865-20-C/D) comes with the black cap already fitted, because that’s what it’s designed to replace, or whether it’s naked and you’re supposed to buy the “carbon black” cap that’s also in the EPC alongside the chrome one.

The basic camera assembly appears to be black anyway (going by @Tevo Solutions video) but it’s unclear if you’re supposed to add the black cap to it, or whether it’s already fitted. If it’s already fitted what purpose does the carbon black cap in the EPC serve?

 

[Tevo Solutions]

Thanks. I didn’t get an answer.

What I am curious about, and haven’t yet seen an answer, is whether the camera assembly (1495865-20-C/D) comes with the black cap already fitted, because that’s what it’s designed to replace, or whether it’s naked and you’re supposed to buy the “carbon black” cap that’s also in the EPC alongside the chrome one.

No, there's no black cap fitted. It comes as you see it in my video. At least the -C part does as that's all I can get here in the UK. I still don;t understand what the 'carbon black' cover is but I'll order one tomorrow to find out.

 

[Tevo Solutions]

OK, so there's good news and bad news.

Bad news first - the -C part does indeed still suffer from glare as @Seminole found out.
Although the PCB on the camera was redesigned and those 3 via holes were eliminated (which I wrongly assumed would fix the probem) there is still light entering the back of the camera sensor. The glue bonding the camera to the board is still translucent and letting enough light in to be a problem.
It's not as bad as the holes, but still too bad IMO.

Looking at @Seminole's photo, the orange glare is mainly at the top of the picture, which is the same as the older cameras where the 3 holes were and where the tape was applied at the factory to fix it.

So the good news is that to repair these -C repeaters, you should only need to drill one hole in the housing and put some paint/black silicone etc. along the top of the camera where I've ringed it. So an easier fix but obviously not what a lot of you will want to do.

So yes I think the -D repeaters are going to be the only ones we can say 100% won't have glare. Many service centres will have -C repeaters in stock right now, so even if they agree to replace them under warranty you could end up with another pair of cameras with glare, albeit slightly less than the older ones.

 

[android04]

I'm surprised you didn't damage it. They're really thin and easy to bend. I couldn't get the one off my sample without damage.

If you mean damaging the chrome cover, I did damage one but not the other. It peeled off about halfway. I would have been able to re-adhere it, but would have had a small dent where it bent. The camera housings underneath look just like the black ones in your video, so this would be an easy way for someone to de-chrome their repeaters if they are so inclined.

If you mean damaging the repeater assemblies, then I actually broke both getting them off . Knowing exactly where the two tabs to push were didn't really help me to get them out, so I pried on them a little too hard. But at least now I can take my time and coat around both camera modules with Plasti Dip, then epoxy the pieces back together. If the repeaters look ugly then I will just email my service center and order two of the newest repeaters (1495864-20-D and 1495865-20-D) even if they aren't available yet and I have to wait a bit for them. BTW, my car was made in March 2018 and had repeater part numbers 1125106-77-A and 1125107-77-A and they had different color circuit boards (left side blue, right side green).

 

[stopcrazypp]

OK, so there's good news and bad news.

Bad news first - the -C part does indeed still suffer from glare as @Seminole found out.
Although the PCB on the camera was redesigned and those 3 via holes were eliminated (which I wrongly assumed would fix the probem) there is still light entering the back of the camera sensor. The glue bonding the camera to the board is still translucent and letting enough light in to be a problem.
It's not as bad as the holes, but still too bad IMO.

View attachment 762222

Looking at @Seminole's photo, the orange glare is mainly at the top of the picture, which is the same as the older cameras where the 3 holes were and where the tape was applied at the factory to fix it.

View attachment 762224

So the good news is that to repair these -C repeaters, you should only need to drill one hole in the housing and put some paint/black silicone etc. along the top of the camera where I've ringed it. So an easier fix but obviously not what a lot of you will want to do.

So yes I think the -D repeaters are going to be the only ones we can say 100% won't have glare. Many service centres will have -C repeaters in stock right now, so even if they agree to replace them under warranty you could end up with another pair of cameras with glare, albeit slightly less than the older ones.

Thanks for doing the additional testing. Your results are consistent with what I observed with my C model early on before anyone took the cameras apart. Basically there is still glare on the top half, although perhaps not as bad as the ones with the 3 holes on the board. The D model had basically no glare at all, I guess consistent with your later fixes that addresses the glue problem also by sealing up the top part.

It's good to know this, otherwise there might have been a weird situation where the same model has different boards and it would make tracking this issue much harder.

 

[Tevo Solutions]

If you mean damaging the chrome cover, I did damage one but not the other. It peeled off about halfway. I would have been able to re-adhere it, but would have had a small dent where it bent. The camera housings underneath look just like the black ones in your video, so this would be an easy way for someone to de-chrome their repeaters if they are so inclined.

If you mean damaging the repeater assemblies, then I actually broke both getting them off . Knowing exactly where the two tabs to push were didn't really help me to get them out, so I pried on them a little too hard. But at least now I can take my time and coat around both camera modules with Plasti Dip, then epoxy the pieces back together. If the repeaters look ugly then I will just email my service center and order two of the newest repeaters (1495864-20-D and 1495865-20-D) even if they aren't available yet and I have to wait a bit for them. BTW, my car was made in March 2018 and had repeater part numbers 1125106-77-A and 1125107-77-A and they had different color circuit boards (left side blue, right side green).

Yes, I did mean damaging the chrome cover as the one I took off was stuck on very well and there was no way to get it off without damage but I agree that when you do get it off you end up with essentially a de-chromed camera. I've ordered one of the 'carbon black' trims detailed in the EPC to find out what that actually is, as my understanding was the de-chromed cameras fitted at the factory were just cameras without the chrome trim.

I carried out the glare fix on two more repeaters in another Model 3 yesterday. This time I decided to try and do it without going behind the camera to press the two tabs. Instead I used a pry tool on the outside to try and get them out by levering from the top first and then the bottom of each unit. I broke off one of the clips on both cameras doing it this way! They still went back in flush and seem secure, so as long as you have at least one of those lower clips unbroken it's probably an OK way to do it, but I think I'd always take them out in future using the 'official' way.

Some have said they've had a ranger take them out from the front but I suspect the reason they do it that way is they don't care if they break those clips as they're going to chuck it in a bin anyway.

Looks like it makes no difference what the PCBs look like inside. It's only the latest -D p/n which is properly fixed. It does beg the question why they applied that black tape fix to earlier cameras and then still didn't sort it out properly on later designs.

 

[Durzel]

I have an open mobile service appointment for condensation in a rear taillight (this'll be the second time I've had one of them replaced) for early next week. I've added this to the request and also included the explicit part codes. I have no idea if 1495864-20-D and 1495865-20-D parts are even available in the UK, I hope so.

I'm expecting to get a call or email towards the end of the week to repeat the boilerplate memo text about it being "a characteristic of the light that was fitted at the time", or something like that, but we'll see. I did pay for FSD outright, if that will count for anything (I doubt it).

 

[Tevo Solutions]

@Durzel I was told on Jan 5th that the -D camera wasn't yet available. I emailed parts again this morning asking to order a -D camera again so let's see if I get the same response. If I can't get a -D I'll just order another -C so I can make 100% sure my repair method works on that revision.

I'd also suggest you seal your taillights as it's likely they are still fitting cracked units and it'll save you the hassle of booking service appointments every few months!

 

[Durzel]

The replacement one they fitted last time lasted a few months, which led me to believe that it was ok, but it seems colder temperatures have exposed its flaws. If it happens again I'll have a go at sealing them myself, using that video that was posted before (may have even been by you )

 

[Tevo Solutions]

The replacement one they fitted last time lasted a few months, which led me to believe that it was ok, but it seems colder temperatures have exposed its flaws. If it happens again I'll have a go at sealing them myself, using that video that was posted before (may have even been by you )

Yes, my video What went wrong with your previous camera? That may have been the already documented recall on camera failures perhaps. Nothing to do with glare though of course.

 

[Durzel]

Sorry I thought we were talking about taillights now I had both my outer rear taillights replaced after they developed water droplets (one of them was bad, the other was ok but the ranger replaced both). For several months they were fine, then one recently started developing water droplets and hasn't cleared up, and has actually dripped down internally.

I've never had a problem with my cameras, other than the issue highlighted in this thread.

 

[Tevo Solutions]

Sorry I thought we were talking about taillights now I had both my outer rear taillights replaced after they developed water droplets (one of them was bad, the other was ok but the ranger replaced both). For several months they were fine, then one recently started developing water droplets and hasn't cleared up, and has actually dripped down internally.

I've never had a problem with my cameras, other than the issue highlighted in this thread.

LOL sorry my bad! I understand now. Better go and have some coffee to wake my brain up

 

[AI1337Tech]

There have been 3 possible paths suggested for remedying this issue:

1. Free replacement with newer style repeater cameras.
2. Replacement but not for free.
3. Software update.

Option 1 is obviously the preferred option but I don't see this happening. Option 2 would be a user request.

A software update could consist either of a filter (doubtful), a partial mask of the upper pixels in the camera field or discarding video frames only when the signal is lit. The last option could result in stuttery video unless the repeater unit LED is limited to a shorter lit duration. I don't know if that the LED's lit duration is either determined by software or relay driven, but someone here must know.

There's a 4th possible option that would consist of a plastic shroud that would fit over the repeater unit LED and shield the camera from the glare.

Sadly the only fix for this is to open the camera housing (drill) and cover up the 3 pcb thru holes that are allowing the led to leak through. External coverings or shrouds will not fix this as its a design flaw internally. cover the lense completely and you will see the glare still. Dumbest design flaw ever as this would have been easily found testing the cameras at night.