Windshield Crack - Not Covered by Warranty

[Adnillien]

Yeah, no, the "this is physics" argument sorta falls apart when the service manager admits that Lucids are cracking windshields left and right here in Canada, and where my study sample of far less expensive cars living in the same conditions have never had window cracking due to defrosting. The car that the Lucid replaced - a 2011 Saab 9-3 wagon - was riddled with rock chips larger than the near-invisible one on the Air, but never had the windshield crack, even below the -30 degree temperature that the Lucid immediately cracked in.

I appreciate your input nonetheless.

I happen to know an Air owner is Phoenix that has cracked three windshields. Its not from running the defroster in cold weather. It always initiates at a chip. I am sorry that this happened to you. I have had to replace my Air windshield once.

 

[Blue Lectroid]

Yeah, no, the "this is physics" argument sorta falls apart when the service manager admits that Lucids are cracking windshields left and right here in Canada, and where my study sample of far less expensive cars living in the same conditions have never had window cracking due to defrosting. The car that the Lucid replaced - a 2011 Saab 9-3 wagon - was riddled with rock chips larger than the near-invisible one on the Air, but never had the windshield crack, even below the -30 degree temperature that the Lucid immediately cracked in.

I appreciate your input nonetheless.

If that is in fact the case, It is more likely structural loading on the windshield than “cheap glass.”

Again, sorry you’re experiencing this.

 

[borski]

Also note, everytime you use your insurance to fix a chip or even replace the glass, it shows up as a claim on your insurance. They will jack up your rates. I went max deductible on all my cars. Will only pay if I think it will cost >10k to repair. Never using insurance for windshield.

This is entirely dependent on the policy, and your assertion is incorrect for most. Glass claims, on average, do not impact your insurance premiums, *especially* if they are repair, rather than replacement.

Lots of bad advice here

Auto insurance has 2 parts:
• ⁠Comprehensive - things out of your control to prevent (like a flying object or a bouncing object that hits your car).
• ⁠Collision - Things in your control to prevent impact with (like trees, buildings, other cars, potholes, etc...)

The idea here is unpredictable things are not your fault and it’s reasonable that there was no way to prevent it.

Because of this, collision claims will generally raise your rates, especially if you were at-fault. Some policies have accident forgiveness, or won’t raise your rates for a small number of not-at-fault claims. However, comprehensive claims (which is what a glass claim falls under) generally will NOT raise your rates.

My comp and collision deductibles are $1k. I see no reason to raise them to $10k. The reason you pay for insurance is to use it when you need it.

Otherwise, you may as well just self-insure. If you don’t want the safety of insurance, you can just accept liability in most states by storing some collateral. No, I don’t recommend this.

 

[borski]

Yeah, no, the "this is physics" argument sorta falls apart when the service manager admits that Lucids are cracking windshields left and right here in Canada, and where my study sample of far less expensive cars living in the same conditions have never had window cracking due to defrosting. The car that the Lucid replaced - a 2011 Saab 9-3 wagon - was riddled with rock chips larger than the near-invisible one on the Air, but never had the windshield crack, even below the -30 degree temperature that the Lucid immediately cracked in.

I appreciate your input nonetheless.

Not even a Lucid service manager can override the laws of physics.

What matters with chips is where they are, how deep they are, and the angle. You got very lucky with your other cars. I hope you continue to be lucky after this replacement!

Defrosting is a known way to crack a windshield with a chip. It’s not new, and it’s not unique to Lucid.

 

[Lucken]

Stay as far away from trucks as practically possible to minimize the chips in the first place. Obviously sometimes that’s not practical but many times it is.

 

[Pavlova]

Try looking into a product called exoshield. I have it on my Air and it has saved me at least 3 times past 2 years on the highway.

 

[Batteryman]

This is entirely dependent on the policy, and your assertion is incorrect for most. Glass claims, on average, do not impact your insurance premiums, *especially* if they are repair, rather than replacement.

Lots of bad advice here

Auto insurance has 2 parts:
• ⁠Comprehensive - things out of your control to prevent (like a flying object or a bouncing object that hits your car).
• ⁠Collision - Things in your control to prevent impact with (like trees, buildings, other cars, potholes, etc...)

The idea here is unpredictable things are not your fault and it’s reasonable that there was no way to prevent it.

Because of this, collision claims will generally raise your rates, especially if you were at-fault. Some policies have accident forgiveness, or won’t raise your rates for a small number of not-at-fault claims. However, comprehensive claims (which is what a glass claim falls under) generally will NOT raise your rates.

My comp and collision deductibles are $1k. I see no reason to raise them to $10k. The reason you pay for insurance is to use it when you need it.

Otherwise, you may as well just self-insure. If you don’t want the safety of insurance, you can just accept liability in most states by storing some collateral. No, I don’t recommend this.

Actually they do…even though they are not supposed to. Insurance can also drop you for too many claims on glass, even if chips. The clue report does not specify if it is a chip or replacement, just says below or greater then $1000.

Insurance companies will try to scam you anyway they can. They can also drop you for too many claims- even if a chip. A person I know got that letter from Progressive- all he did was 6 chip repairs and 3 glass replacements in 5 years- got a non-renewal letter.

 

[Batteryman]

Too many glass claims can make you non-insurable

 

[AirDoll]

Actually they do…even though they are not supposed to. Insurance can also drop you for too many claims on glass, even if chips. The clue report does not specify if it is a chip or replacement, just says below or greater then $1000.

Insurance companies will try to scam you anyway they can. They can also drop you for too many claims- even if a chip. A person I know got that letter from Progressive- all he did was 6 chip repairs and 3 glass replacements in 5 years- got a non-renewal letter.

Agreed. I replaced my windshield due to a rock hitting me on the freeway (thank you very much gravel truck) and Progressive counted it as a claim even though they technically never reimbursed me for the replacement cost. Their outside windshield company made it impossible in a never ending loop of needing “more specific data” that I finally gave up on after one year of back and forth. We ended up dropping Progressive after they wanted to triple our rates.

 

[rfc805]

If you repeatedly have this problem, I probably agree with you. Right now though, one data point could very well just be bad luck.

Everyone is jumping to defend for no reason. There have been quite a few cars that had defects in structural loading of the glass or other issues that were discovered late after many owners had repeated windshield cracks.

There's a balance to be struck that hopefully Lucid is paying attention to - you can always blame a glass break on chips, because every windshield that has seen a road will have some tiny chips.

If there are potentially many owners who have gone through 3 windshields - and to be clear, there aren't any first hand accounts of that here, that would be a bad sign. Lucid would not be the first to have a defect that caused glass to break under certain loads.

Glass is finicky, but a chip small enough you don't notice it usually is not enough to cause a crack like this. Except when it is. Time will tell.

 

[borski]

Everyone is jumping to defend for no reason. There have been quite a few cars that had defects in structural loading of the glass or other issues that were discovered late after many owners had repeated windshield cracks.

Let me be super clear: I am not defending Lucid. I am describing how glass, temperature, and physics interact. If Lucid has a defect in its glass, I would agree with you entirely. There’s no indication of that.

There's a balance to be struck that hopefully Lucid is paying attention to - you can always blame a glass break on chips, because every windshield that has seen a road will have some tiny chips.

Sure, but where the chip is matters. If it is literally in the middle of or at the edge of a crack, that’s a cause, not luck.

If there are potentially many owners who have gone through 3 windshields - and to be clear, there aren't any first hand accounts of that here, that would be a bad sign.

Agreed. Not the case at the moment.

 

[rfc805]

Sure, but where the chip is matters. If it is literally in the middle of or at the edge of a crack, that’s a cause, not luck.

Well, yes - but also no. The crack will almost certainly find any chips, but it doesn't mean that's the origination.

If stress from the edge causes the crack, the crack will almost certainly pass through any chips present, even if you couldn't see them.

In general I think we agree though - but I have had a car that had a defect in the glass design which had a similar issue. Eventually they had to replace them with glass that was like, almost microscopically thicker to solve the issue. Down side, is none of the previous breaks were compensated because there's no way to really tell the difference, and they weren't willing to assume all the previous failures were the defect.

 

[borski]

Well, yes - but also no. The crack will almost certainly find any chips, but it doesn't mean that's the origination.

If stress from the edge causes the crack, the crack will almost certainly pass through any chips present, even if you couldn't see them.

In general I think we agree though - but I have had a car that had a defect in the glass design which had a similar issue. Eventually they had to replace them with glass that was like, almost microscopically thicker to solve the issue. Down side, is none of the previous breaks were compensated because there's no way to really tell the difference, and they weren't willing to assume all the previous failures were the defect.

The one situation in which I had an edge crack (on the rear windshield), Lucid replaced my rear windshield for free, as there was no indicative chip.

I strongly suspect if there had been no chip, Lucid may have covered the windshield. That's my only point.

I hear what you're saying on the rest. If Lucid windshields were cracking left and right, I'd totally agree.

 

[jedwin]

Try looking into a product called exoshield. I have it on my Air and it has saved me at least 3 times past 2 years on the highway.

What is this, and what does it do?

Is it visibly perceptible, or change anything vis a vis wiper streaking or defrost?

 

[hmp10]

We are on our third Air windshield, with Lucid replacing the first two at no charge.

When our original Air Dream was totaled in an accident, I replaced it with a used Air Dream. The first time it was in the shop, the driver side sun visor became detached. Lucid found signs that it had been detached earlier and been reattached with some kind of glue, probably by the original owner. (There were posts early on from owners who had removed the sun visors because they didn't like their look and were going to see how things went without them, but not sure if that was the case with this car.) However, the visor could not be reattached properly to the old windshield, so Lucid replaced the windshield under warranty, no questions asked -- something I think they could have easily tried to argue their way out of doing.

That second windshield had a small optical defect in the lamination film between the two layers of glass that could only be seen in certain light conditions. Lucid also replaced that windshield under warranty.

My experience with over three years of Lucid service has been that they do no try to avoid responsibility for anything that is their fault . . . or even might only conceivably be.

 

[momo3605]

Respectfully, while it really sucks that your windshield cracked, that’s just not something the manufacturer (or a dealer) is responsible for. It’s not “cheap glass,” it’s bad luck. I had the same thing happen on a BMW 325i back in the 1990’s. Car was a month old. It sucked for me, but I did not expect BMW to pay for it.

Souring on the Lucid because of this is totally your prerogative, but it seems a bit extreme to me. I wish you well with the repair.

Tesla replaced my rear windshield glass on my Model 3 for free back in 2019 since it was not caused by an impact. I would expect Lucid to do the same if this was indeed a stress crack, and not an impact related crack. It's very easy to rub your hand along the outside edge of the crack to figure out the origin point.

 

[momo3605]

We are on our third Air windshield, with Lucid replacing the first two at no charge.

When our original Air Dream was totaled in an accident, I replaced it with a used Air Dream. The first time it was in the shop, the driver side sun visor became detached. Lucid found signs that it had been detached earlier and been reattached with some kind of glue, probably by the original owner. (There were posts early on from owners who had removed the sun visors because they didn't like their look and were going to see how things went without them, but not sure if that was the case with this car.) However, the visor could not be reattached properly to the old windshield, so Lucid replaced the windshield under warranty, no questions asked -- something I think they could have easily tried to argue their way out of doing.

That second windshield had a small optical defect in the lamination film between the two layers of glass that could only be seen in certain light conditions. Lucid also replaced that windshield under warranty.

My experience with over three years of Lucid service has been that they do no try to avoid responsibility for anything that is their fault . . . or even might only conceivably be.

Yes exactly. I'm surprised how many people are saying Lucid is completely in the right here. If it's indeed a crack that didn't originate from an impact, they SHOULD replace it under warranty. Other manufacturers will do this as well.

I'm not saying I trust unverified owner OP with 30 posts, but I have no doubt Lucid would've replaced your windshields at no charge given the situation.

 

[borski]

Yes exactly. I'm surprised how many people are saying Lucid is completely in the right here. If it's indeed a crack that didn't originate from an impact, they SHOULD replace it under warranty. Other manufacturers will do this as well.

I'm not saying I trust unverified owner OP with 30 posts, but I have no doubt Lucid would've replaced your windshields at no charge given the situation.

I agree. If it didn’t originate from an impact, it should be replaced under warranty.

It didn’t sound to me like that was the case. But if it was, I agree.

 

[LucidGoosey]

I'm not saying I trust unverified owner OP with 30 posts, but I have no doubt Lucid would've replaced your windshields at no charge given the situation.

Not sure what this has to do anything? I am a new owner so my experience is less valid?

I agree. If it didn’t originate from an impact, it should be replaced under warranty.

It didn’t sound to me like that was the case. But if it was, I agree.

Not sure how else to explain this, but the crack didn't originate from an impact. It was cracked by the temperature difference caused by using the defroster in cold weather, end of story. The glass Lucid uses is more brittle than any other car I've ever owned, and even the service manager admitted to this and told me to expect to replace the windshield once a year if I want to continue using the defroster when it's cold.

I get that folks here will mostly be cheerleaders for the brand, but the best way to help Lucid improve is by calling out the actual issues with car that are areas for improvement, not burying our heads in the sand. We are still beta-testers after all.

 

[borski]

Not sure what this has to do anything? I am a new owner so my experience is less valid?

Please don’t take that the wrong way, though it’s easy to. A lot of folks show up here pretending to own the car and trying to just stir up drama; it’s pretty clear that’s not you, but that’s where the skepticism came from; that’s all.

Not sure how else to explain this, but the crack didn't originate from an impact. It was cracked by the temperature difference caused by using the defroster in cold weather, end of story. The glass Lucid uses is more brittle than any other car I've ever owned, and even the service manager admitted to this and told me to expect to replace the windshield once a year if I want to continue using the defroster when it's cold.

There’s a nuance though - if the chip didn’t exist, or had been filled in, would defrost have caused the windshield to crack? My bet is a hard no.

That means that the crack *did* originate with the chip, and the defrost exacerbated it, which is precisely what I’ve been describing the whole time.