Tesla denied warranty for Upper control arms because of Aftermarket Suspension

[CKwik240]

Your contention is not treated as evidence. Show evidence such as FEA proving your point. Otherwise stop arguing.

Disconnect the upper control arm ball joint from the spindle and tell me what resistance there is to the weight of a car? Aside from friction from the inner bushings, there is no resistance to the arm pivoting up and down. Hence there is no force that can be applied in the direction the arm swings.

I'd love to do an FEA on this but my laptop with Solidworks on it has not been working for several months and I don't have the time or need to fix it. But frankly it's not something that couldn't be understood by comparing free body diagrams at 2 different suspension heights.

Example:

[Retracted] Finite Element Structure Analysis of Automobile Suspension Control Arm Based on Neural Network Control

The control arm is an important transmission and guidance device in the Macpherson suspension system, which has an important impact on the ride comfort, operation stability, and safety of the vehicle, so it is necessary to study the structural performance of the control arm. In this paper, based...

www.hindawi.com

You linked to a MacPherson strut. It does not have an upper control arm as the top of the strut is a locating member of the suspension. The UCA of a double wishbone suspension is generally not loaded by the weight of the vehicle. It could certainly be designed to carry the weight on the UCA, but it would not package very neatly.

 

[White Shadow]

As if your the only one in the industry? And that's certainly all fine and well, but even if you are, you should still be able to back your contentions with fact and analysis. When subject matter experts still have to provide evidence of their claims.

What claims have I made? That manufacturers reserve the right to deny warranty coverage on modified vehicles? I don't think that requires evidence because it's widely know/accepted as fact. Citation uncessary.

 

[CKwik240]

What claims have I made? That manufacturers reserve the right to deny warranty coverage on modified vehicles? I don't think that requires evidence because it's widely know/accepted as fact. Citation uncessary.

By whom? Every single one of the vehicles my company manufactures is modified. We certainly do not deny a warranty simply for the fact that it is modified even when the modification directly acts on the failed component. In many cases I am asked to investigate the returned parts or go out and inspect a vehicle to provide an engineering opinion.

Any manufacturer can make the assertion to deny a warranty for a modification. But it's not black and white by any means. And the owner of the vehicle has paths to seek recourse if they disagree. Which means the manufacturer doesn't actually have the final say.

And this ultimately brings us back to the technicals. And you seem to keep claiming that this doesn't matter and Tesla can do whatever they want.

 

[White Shadow]

By whom? Every single one of the vehicles my company manufactures is modified. We certainly do not deny a warranty simply for the fact that it is modified even when the modification directly acts on the failed component. In many cases I am asked to investigate the returned parts or go out and inspect a vehicle to provide an engineering opinion.

Any manufacturer can make the assertion to deny a warranty for a modification. But it's not black and white by any means. And the owner of the vehicle has paths to seek recourse if they disagree. Which means the manufacturer doesn't actually have the final say.

And this ultimately brings us back to the technicals. And you seem to keep claiming that this doesn't matter and Tesla can do whatever they want.

You're trying hard to suck me back into an argument, but it's not going to happen. So I'll just say this to clarify---my entire contention here is that the written warranty rules. Manufacturers are under no legal obligation to offer a warranty on their vehicles. So they get to make the rules. And as long as those rules don't fall outside of the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act, which is Federal Law, then it's end of discussion. Go argue the rest with someone else. I've said all I can say already.

 

[enemji]

Disconnect the upper control arm ball joint from the spindle and tell me what resistance there is to the weight of a car? Aside from friction from the inner bushings, there is no resistance to the arm pivoting up and down. Hence there is no force that can be applied in the direction the arm swings.

I'd love to do an FEA on this but my laptop with Solidworks on it has not been working for several months and I don't have the time or need to fix it. But frankly it's not something that couldn't be understood by comparing free body diagrams at 2 different suspension heights.

You linked to a MacPherson strut. It does not have an upper control arm as the top of the strut is a locating member of the suspension. The UCA of a double wishbone suspension is generally not loaded by the weight of the vehicle. It could certainly be designed to carry the weight on the UCA, but it would not package very neatly.

1. Please feel to discuss and hopefully members participate in building up suitable evidence that you can provide to Tesla for consideration

2. The FEA I provided was just an example in case you did not understand what I was asking for. Seems like you do!

3. Either build the evidence or swap out to original parts and take it back

 

[CKwik240]

You're trying hard to suck me back into an argument, but it's not going to happen. So I'll just say this to clarify---my entire contention here is that the written warranty rules. Manufacturers are under no legal obligation to offer a warranty on their vehicles. So they get to make the rules. And as long as those rules don't fall outside of the Magnuson–Moss Warranty Act, which is Federal Law, then it's end of discussion. Go argue the rest with someone else. I've said all I can say already.

But they don't get to rewrite the rules. The warranty already exists. I've already provided a link and quoted the relevant sections of the warranty. And no where does it say the warranty repair can be denied simply because it was modified. It literally says resulting from. Which means there has to be some kind of causation.

No one is pulling you back into the argument. I'm under no obligation to cede the argument simply because you say you no longer want to engage. I am just making a point against your last argument. What you chose to do after that is entirely up to you...

 

[White Shadow]

But they don't get to rewrite the rules. The warranty already exists. I've already provided a link and quoted the relevant sections of the warranty. And no where does it say the warranty repair can be denied simply because it was modified. It literally says resulting from. Which means there has to be some kind of causation.

No one is pulling you back into the argument. I'm under no obligation to cede the argument simply because you say you no longer want to engage. I am just making a point against your last argument. What you chose to do after that is entirely up to you...

Pulled directly from Tesla's warranty documentation. Nobody is rewriting the rules. Case closed. Again, go argue with someone else. Maybe you should argue with Tesla. That might be a better use for your time.

 

[CKwik240]

Pulled directly from Tesla's warranty documentation. Nobody is rewriting the rules. Case closed. Again, go argue with someone else. Maybe you should argue with Tesla. That might be a better use for your time.

View attachment 838193

Perhaps you should take it in context. That section primarily deals with not covering the aftermarket parts themselves, which it certainly doesn't. But even then, it does mention damage "caused by". Again, causation is important and relevant.

 

[White Shadow]

Perhaps you should take it in context. That section primarily deals with not covering the aftermarket parts themselves, which it certainly doesn't. But even then, it does mention damage "caused by". Again, causation is important and relevant. View attachment 838219

Again, go argue with the lawyers. Or the Arbitrator. You conveniently left that part out of your prior warranty post, so I figured I'd include it. Interpret it any way you like....

 

[whisperingshad]

Here is the law:

According to the Magnuson-Moss Act, a vehicle manufacturer cannot automatically cancel your warranty just because you’ve installed aftermarket car parts. This is an illegal practice. That said, if your aftermarket part somehow causes or contributes to a failure in your vehicle, the dealer may be able to deny your warranty claim—as long as they can prove the connection. In these cases, the burden of proof is entirely on the dealership.

 

[Rmchrger]

See the upper right of below from the updated service manual:

https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/attachments/1659189932973-png.834589/

And just in case some acronyms need deciphering:

FUCA = front upper control arm
RLCA = rear lower control arm

What on earth is a "silver cast iron FUCA"?

I wonder if they (tesla) are coming out with a newer version yet again.
Even amazon had them for a while. I see multiple companies overseas showing them on websites. Skeptical myself until something is proven.

Now back to your regular programming...ding ding...

 

[CKwik240]

Again, go argue with the lawyers. Or the Arbitrator. You conveniently left that part out of your prior warranty post, so I figured I'd include it. Interpret it any way you like....

I don't have a need to argue with any lawyers or arbitrators. But I do meet with our legal department regarding recalls, lawsuits, and potential lawsuits as needed.

It wasn't left out intentionally. The first section basically says what the warranty doesn't cover, and the excerpt you provided had to do with coverage for the replacing aftermarket parts under warranty. Therefore it's not materially relevant to the discussion we are having. And I interpret it in English. Thanks.

 

[CKwik240]

1. Please feel to discuss and hopefully members participate in building up suitable evidence that you can provide to Tesla for consideration

2. The FEA I provided was just an example in case you did not understand what I was asking for. Seems like you do!

3. Either build the evidence or swap out to original parts and take it back

1&3. FYI, my car is not lowered. FUCAs we're replaced in April under warranty. I'm just offering my thoughts based on my knowledge to help others.

2. While FEA is a powerful tool, if you qualitatively analyze the forces in the UCA, you'll find there is no change to angles of load on the UCA. As such, the FEA as it pertains to the ball joint surfaces would not change other than the angle of the ball with relation to the UCA. But since it's a ball joint, the joint itself doesn't really care. The stem on the ball is loaded at a slightly different angle, but that's not what's failing here. There just no need to reinvent the wheel to understand this problem. But if this were to be tried it arbitrated, visual representations of the load and the resultant stresses certainly wouldn't hurt.

 

[nate704]

I am officially "unfollow" this thread since this is going nowhere.
Bye!

 

[Gauss Guzzler]

I wonder if they (tesla) are coming out with a newer version yet again.
Even amazon had them for a while. I see multiple companies overseas showing them on websites. Skeptical myself until something is proven.
View attachment 838233
Now back to your regular programming...ding ding...

That's a cast aluminum aftermarket replacement. I'm really curious to see Tesla's cast *iron* version. I haven't seen a cast iron suspension arm since 1973.

 

[Rmchrger]

That's a cast aluminum aftermarket replacement. I'm really curious to see Tesla's cast *iron* version. I haven't seen a cast iron suspension arm since 1973.

Lol, My bad for not paying attention. Good catch. Can you imagine how heavy that cast iron part would be...

 

[enemji]

Here is the law:

According to the Magnuson-Moss Act, a vehicle manufacturer cannot automatically cancel your warranty just because you’ve installed aftermarket car parts. This is an illegal practice. That said, if your aftermarket part somehow causes or contributes to a failure in your vehicle, the dealer may be able to deny your warranty claim—as long as they can prove the connection. In these cases, the burden of proof is entirely on the dealership.

Aftermarket parts that are meeting the same specs as required and recommended by the manufacturer.

But they cannot refuse an unrelated parts warranty such as your seatbelt or battery

 

[White Shadow]

Here is the law:

According to the Magnuson-Moss Act, a vehicle manufacturer cannot automatically cancel your warranty just because you’ve installed aftermarket car parts. This is an illegal practice. That said, if your aftermarket part somehow causes or contributes to a failure in your vehicle, the dealer may be able to deny your warranty claim—as long as they can prove the connection. In these cases, the burden of proof is entirely on the dealership.

My point exactly. This is why arbitration exists.

 

[Perscitus]

I wonder if they (tesla) are coming out with a newer version yet again.
Even amazon had them for a while. I see multiple companies overseas showing them on websites. Skeptical myself until something is proven.
View attachment 838233
Now back to your regular programming...ding ding...

The MiC silver FUCAs have been around for a year plus maybe two now, the new Tesla part should be different... maybe if someone gets them installed with the endless FUCA replacements, they will post up the details here.

Yet yes, it would be ironic if the new Tesla part was exactly as above and perhaps first used on MiC Model 3/Ys... would indicate they signed a supplier deal with the factory making these and selling them via Alibaba/express, eBay, Amazon, etc. with NoName brand vs Tesla OE stamped part tax.

 

[enemji]

Aftermarket parts that are meeting the same specs as required and recommended by the manufacturer.

But they cannot refuse an unrelated parts warranty such as your seatbelt or battery

Here is the law:

According to the Magnuson-Moss Act, a vehicle manufacturer cannot automatically cancel your warranty just because you’ve installed aftermarket car parts. This is an illegal practice. That said, if your aftermarket part somehow causes or contributes to a failure in your vehicle, the dealer may be able to deny your warranty claim—as long as they can prove the connection. In these cases, the burden of proof is entirely on the dealership.

Here is an example. If the car engine requires 5w30 engine oil, and you change your oil at a non dealership using 5w30 and is certified by the API Engine Oil Certification is not a problem. Using a non certified 5w30 such as Amsoil is a problem.