For Science!! - Rich Rebuilds rescue an Air

[ExCivilian]

I wonder, though, if the overall benefit we get is better than being able to DIY. There is less incentive for stealing cars for parts, which is a significant problem with organized crime rings targeting specific car models.

Personally, I like knowing Lucid is a bad target for the underground parts black market.

I would argue it works against that position. The high cost of repairs and refusal of sane repair policies from Lucid incentivize stealing cars for parts and fosters a black market repair context.

 

[Bdr100]

I would argue it works against that position. The high cost of repairs and refusal of sane repair policies from Lucid incentivize stealing cars for parts and fosters a black market repair context.

But Lucid will brick every car that does not go through approved and varified repair process. Such as the 2 cars in video. Even if they could somehow find the needed repair parts second hand and then make the necessary repairs, these cars will remain bricked via their software. The only market I see for second hand parts are for body panels to replace after minor fender benders that are so minor that no warning codes are triggered in the car. Or for parts that wear out through normal wear and tear post warranty.

 

[psulightning]

I wonder, though, if the overall benefit we get is better than being able to DIY. There is less incentive for stealing cars for parts, which is a significant problem with organized crime rings targeting specific car models.

Personally, I like knowing Lucid is a bad target for the underground parts black market.

With Lucid, it might a mix. Not enough for their factories and service centers in the first place. And 2, in general not wanting to support a DIY. Regardless of political opinion, when the OEM CEOs asked Trump to not allow owners to repair their own vehicles, he scoffed and signed a memo affirming right to repair.

I don’t think Rich is expecting them to warranty the car when he is done with it nor was the other guy (Peter). But if I’m shelling out 50K, Lucid damn well better warranty the vehicle at that point.

 

[ExCivilian]

But Lucid will brick every car that does not go through approved and varified repair process. Such as the 2 cars in video. Even if they could somehow find the needed repair parts second hand and then make the necessary repairs, these cars will remain bricked via their software. The only market I see for second hand parts are for body panels to replace after minor fender benders that are so minor that no warning codes are triggered in the car. Or for parts that wear out through normal wear and tear post warranty.

They only brick vehicles that are brought to their attention. Lucid tracks public insurance and salvage yard data along with vehicle telemetrics to determine when a vehicle becomes non-roadworthy. A fender bender or negotiation with one's insurance company that doesn't result in a salvage determination won't be tracked by them.

If Peter was the original owner (or repairing the vehicle for the original owner), he would only have had an issue after contacting Lucid through official channels and bringing the vehicle to their attention. If he had sourced stolen parts off the black market he would have had it back on the road in a matter of weeks.

 

[tmichael]

Insurance company decision to total is based on repair cost. That repair cost is coming from Lucid. Supposedly for the car that was at other shop with minimal damage (probably $8k to $10k on any other luxury car - Mercedes, BMW) Lucid did not even see the car. Which makes me think that after the accident, that car threw an error code, probably based on impact G force load, and based on that error code decided to total the car, even though the visual damages (that they never saw) were minor.

It would be helpful if Lucid was more forthcoming on why they took the decision to total the car, such as “based on error codes from the accident, there is likelihood of internal, non-visual, damage to battery, motor, etc.”

The insurance adjuster has to identify the parts and apply labor costs to determine whether they total the car. Yes, Lucid is going to sell the repair parts and do the labor, however the insurance company has either in-house or contract adjusters whose responsibility it is to recommend to the insurer whether it's worth repairing. Lucid doesn't need to see the car - the insurance adjuster has to.

To blame Lucid for making repair/total decisions is simply incorrect. They can price repair costs atmospherically, but it is still the insurance company's call. To infer Lucid is complicit in making a decision to "drive up sales" of new cars is a step too far... IMHO.

Dream Ahead!

 

[ExCivilian]

The insurance adjuster has to identify the parts and apply labor costs to determine whether they total the car. Yes, Lucid is going to sell the repair parts and do the labor, however the insurance company has either in-house or contract adjusters whose responsibility it is to recommend to the insurer whether it's worth repairing. Lucid doesn't need to see the car - the insurance adjuster has to.

To blame Lucid for making repair/total decisions is simply incorrect. They can price repair costs atmospherically, but it is still the insurance company's call. To infer Lucid is complicit in making a decision to "drive up sales" of new cars is a step too far... IMHO.

Dream Ahead!

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories generally.

Assuming that we have correct information, the fact that Lucid's first line response is "reshell vehicles after fender benders" and we also brick the software to the tune of $50K certainly appears to place the reason a crashed Lucid becomes totaled squarely on Lucid itself.

Your argument that insurance companies and adjusters are essentially independent 3rd parties to Lucid and the owner is problematized by Lucid controlling the cost and availability of repairs. Even more so when at least some of that cost seems to be inflated to a point that would account for the first or second year of depreciation of a new car. I'm not disagreeing with the logic of your argument but you seem to be ignoring that critical factor. There isn't any realistic pathway for an insurance company to *not* total a Lucid in light of those costs when it's less expensive to just pay out the insured for far less than the cost of repair.

 

[psulightning]

The insurance adjuster has to identify the parts and apply labor costs to determine whether they total the car. Yes, Lucid is going to sell the repair parts and do the labor, however the insurance company has either in-house or contract adjusters whose responsibility it is to recommend to the insurer whether it's worth repairing. Lucid doesn't need to see the car - the insurance adjuster has to.

To blame Lucid for making repair/total decisions is simply incorrect. They can price repair costs atmospherically, but it is still the insurance company's call. To infer Lucid is complicit in making a decision to "drive up sales" of new cars is a step too far... IMHO.

Dream Ahead!

To this, if it would cost the insurance 50k to get the car back in running condition that could explain why the minor damage to Peter’s car was a total loss.

 

[tmichael]

I don't subscribe to conspiracy theories generally.

Assuming that we have correct information, the fact that Lucid's first line response is "reshell vehicles after fender benders" and we also brick the software to the tune of $50K certainly appears to place the reason a crashed Lucid becomes totaled squarely on Lucid itself.

Your argument that insurance companies and adjusters are essentially independent 3rd parties to Lucid and the owner is problematized by Lucid controlling the cost and availability of repairs. Even more so when at least some of that cost seems to be inflated to a point that would account for the first or second year of depreciation of a new car. I'm not disagreeing with the logic of your argument but you seem to be ignoring that critical factor. There isn't any realistic pathway for an insurance company to *not* total a Lucid in light of those costs when it's less expensive to just pay out the insured for far less than the cost of repair.

I guess another way to look at it is that if it would cost $250K to repair a Gravity GT, an insurance company could choose to pay it. Or, the owner could take whatever the insurance company wanted to pay and the owner could pay the additional cost (assuming it is actually repairable.). Lucid will repair a repairable vehicle.

Totaling an otherwise repairable car is simply the insurance company deciding that repair costs exceed the value of the car. It is not Lucid making that decision. Do they impact that decision by requiring Lucid parts and only authorized shops? Yep. So does Ferrari, if you want to return the car to original specs.

This has all been discussed due to my statement that Lucid does not make a decision to total a car to "make a sale." The insurance company makes the decision and you may very well replace it with another manufacturer. If Lucid controlled the decision to total, they could require you to replace the car with another Lucid.

Or, I agree to disagree. I'm good with believing Lucid is not actively preventing repairable cars from being repaired or is complicit with any insurance companies to "make a sale."

 

[ExCivilian]

I guess another way to look at it is that if it would cost $250K to repair a Gravity GT, an insurance company could choose to pay it. Or, the owner could take whatever the insurance company wanted to pay and the owner could pay the additional cost (assuming it is actually repairable.). Lucid will repair a repairable vehicle.

Totaling an otherwise repairable car is simply the insurance company deciding that repair costs exceed the value of the car. It is not Lucid making that decision. Do they impact that decision by requiring Lucid parts and only authorized shops? Yep. So does Ferrari, if you want to return the car to original specs.

This has all been discussed due to my statement that Lucid does not make a decision to total a car to "make a sale." The insurance company makes the decision and you may very well replace it with another manufacturer. If Lucid controlled the decision to total, they could require you to replace the car with another Lucid.

Or, I agree to disagree. I'm good with believing Lucid is not actively preventing repairable cars from being repaired or is complicit with any insurance companies to "make a sale."

I already agreed with you that I doubt Lucid is actively conspiring with insurance companies to total repairable vehicles in order to generate new sales. But the argument you've constructed to support your position is illogical and untenable.

An insurance company will not choose to repair a Gravity if the cost is $250,000. State laws and insurance contracts preclude them from doing so and suggesting it's a "choice" they could otherwise make is disingenuous, at best. In the context of this conversation, Lucid's decisions and insurers' fiscal reality, your first sentence reads as absurd. Ferrari, to my knowledge, do not require an extra (seemingly arbitrary) $50,000 on top of service and parts to put a vehicle back on the road.

Your argument continues to ignore and gloss over the fact that Lucid isn't simply requiring "parts and service" from them. They're artificially inflating the cost of repairs by requiring full reshells and exorbitant software costs to unlock vehicles from a locked out "Service Mode." Every adjuster has to take the cost of those decisions, wholly made by Lucid alone, into account when determining the repair vs. payout decision.

Regardless, speculation as to why Lucid has chosen to make minor repairs untenable and fiscally unsound aside, the reality of the situation is that locking a vehicle out of serviceability via software alone is not going to withstand judicial scrutiny under MA's Right to Repair laws. I suspect that's why Rich Rebuilds undertook this project so that he could gain standing to bring suit against Lucid in the same way he did against Tesla years ago.

Again, I don't know why Lucid is making these decisions but I've demonstrated why it's inaccurate to claim they are being made by 3rd parties or, at minimum, to ignore the 3rd party decisions are fully dictated by Lucid policy. But it's a more robust argument against a conspiracy to sell new cars by pointing out insurers' payouts are limited to market value and so payouts will generally only enable an insured to replace "like for like" or, in other words, a used Lucid.

 

[Adnillien]

I already agreed with you that I doubt Lucid is actively conspiring with insurance companies to total repairable vehicles in order to generate new sales. But the argument you've constructed to support your position is illogical and untenable.

An insurance company will not choose to repair a Gravity if the cost is $250,000. State laws and insurance contracts preclude them from doing so and suggesting it's a "choice" they could otherwise make is disingenuous, at best. In the context of this conversation, Lucid's decisions and insurers' fiscal reality, your first sentence reads as absurd. Ferrari, to my knowledge, do not require an extra (seemingly arbitrary) $50,000 on top of service and parts to put a vehicle back on the road.

Your argument continues to ignore and gloss over the fact that Lucid isn't simply requiring "parts and service" from them. They're artificially inflating the cost of repairs by requiring full reshells and exorbitant software costs to unlock vehicles from a locked out "Service Mode." Every adjuster has to take the cost of those decisions, wholly made by Lucid alone, into account when determining the repair vs. payout decision.

Regardless, speculation as to why Lucid has chosen to make minor repairs untenable and fiscally unsound aside, the reality of the situation is that locking a vehicle out of serviceability via software alone is not going to withstand judicial scrutiny under MA's Right to Repair laws. I suspect that's why Rich Rebuilds undertook this project so that he could gain standing to bring suit against Lucid in the same way he did against Tesla years ago.

Again, I don't know why Lucid is making these decisions but I've demonstrated why it's inaccurate to claim they are being made by 3rd parties or, at minimum, to ignore the 3rd party decisions are fully dictated by Lucid policy. But it's a more robust argument against a conspiracy to sell new cars by pointing out insurers' payouts are limited to market value and so payouts will generally only enable an insured to replace "like for like" or, in other words, a used Lucid.

I think that you are missing the point the the $50k "reshelling" only applies to cars that have been totaled by an insurer. If the car is not totaled and repaired by a bodyshop, the $50k fee does not apply. While Lucid does only sell parts to authorized shops, Lucid is not tacking on extra fees so that cars are totaled.

 

[ExCivilian]

I think that you are missing the point the the $50k "reshelling" only applies to cars that have been totaled by an insurer. If the car is not totaled and repaired by a bodyshop, the $50k fee does not apply.

That information completely invalidates my points. It does beg the question of why "Peter's" car was totaled in the first place, though, if it's only cosmetic damage. That's one of the reasons I framed my posts as a mere assumption we have the right facts because these are content creators after all.

 

[drb3333]

That information completely invalidates my points. It does beg the question of why "Peter's" car was totaled in the first place, though, if it's only cosmetic damage. That's one of the reasons I framed my posts as a mere assumption we have the right facts because these are content creators after all.

I think you are getting to the point, as has been discussed on Tesla forums.
We do not know what the computer reported to the mothership and how many peripheral systems may be flagged, which negates the cosmetic damage only hypothesis.
Another user said Lucid may monitor wrecking yards, but I feel this is quite unlikely since any major event is recorded and potentially uploaded. Lucid is too busy elsewhere.

 

[psulightning]

I think that you are missing the point the the $50k "reshelling" only applies to cars that have been totaled by an insurer. If the car is not totaled and repaired by a bodyshop, the $50k fee does not apply. While Lucid does only sell parts to authorized shops, Lucid is not tacking on extra fees so that cars are totaled.

I think the bigger problem is if I have to pay 50k to reshell the vehicle and Lucid is doing it, their not warranty-ing the car is ludicrous. It’s not like Rich is looking to mod the Air (at least not right away). Would totally accept Lucid saying go pound sand if that were the case.

That being said, I am making assumptions based on what Rich presented in the video. I am hoping we will have more direct evidence in his further videos since he now is in the same situation as Peter.

It does have a bad PR look to it, but Engineering Explained’s video seemed a “fart in the wind” PR issue too.

 

[Rogue]

Regardless of who is at fault for totaling cars unnecessarily, Rich is doing good work.

PR stunt, selfish reasons, or otherwise, I prefer a world where there is more transparency and repair of cars that are genuinely road worthy.

I look forward to watching the new videos and seeing where weight can be applied. People ought to have the right to repair what they have purchased. They may not like the price, but it should still be an option.

 

[tmichael]

But it's a more robust argument against a conspiracy to sell new cars by pointing out insurers' payouts are limited to market value and so payouts will generally only enable an insured to replace "like for like" or, in other words, a used Lucid.

I'm glad we agree that there is no conspiracy at Lucid regarding totaling a car. That was my, apparently poorly supported, original point.

Dream Ahead! They are great vehicles commanding great passion in so many ways!

 

[Bdr100]

Totaling a car can sometimes be very arbitrary. Back in 2017, here in Houston we got hit with Hurricane Harvey - 50 in of rain in 4 days. My car, son’s car and daughter’s car were all flooded. My car and son’s car had full coverage with USAA and they were totaled without insurance or adjuster even looking at them, probably due to insurance company being swamped with flood damage claims. My daughter’s car only had basic liability. My son says “I got a guy”, and we had her car towed to “his guy”. $2000 in repairs, totally stripped interior and cleaned up. Car almost like new again and she drove it for another 5 years with no issues and got full trade in value when she replaced it in 2022.

 

[victoryroad]

First, I must say that Rich has a wonderful sense of humor and he is brave to attempt to repair the car. Lucid does not repair cars damaged in accidents. Only approved body shops can do repairs so that the car will remain under existing warranty. My 2023 AGT was deemed a total loss a week ago after a month since the rear end collision the afternoon before my father's funeral a couple hundred miles away. The repair estimates got to $60,000 and my guess is that they would be more once the shop started to work on it. The damage to it was far less than the one Rich is repairing. The right rear axel was bent with apparently minor panel damage but several systems were damaged and there were repeated warnings when I drove the car that was badly misaligned to a studio fortunately only about ten miles away. The Lucid service center was kind enough to get me a Touring to drive to my father's funeral the next morning. My insurance company has been very accommodating with everything. The car is a salvage and will go to Copart.

 

[ExCivilian]

Dream Ahead! They are great vehicles commanding great passion in so many ways!

Best car I've owned so far! and thankfully in my wife's favorite color. Just waiting for my verified owner's badge

The repair estimates got to $60,000 and my guess is that they would be more once the shop started to work on it.

Did they tell you how it got to that point? Were the systems $15K each or something?

 

[victoryroad]

Best car I've owned so far! and thankfully in my wife's favorite color. Just waiting for my verified owner's badge

Did they tell you how it got to that point? Were the systems $15K each or something?

I only saw the initial itemized estimate that was ~$36k. The supplemental estimate from the body shop put it over the edge after the appraiser reviewed it.

 

[Aka-none]

So who does anyone think salvaged parts are going to if only Lucid can make repairs that require those parts?
What if I want to get into e racing?
Or building a one off that doesn’t need to meet any specific requirements, say off road or ranch car?