And the crazy thing is their is plenty of people who have had it installed at a SC and have had a good 350-500 pounds up there with the pads sitting on the glass and haven’t had issues. I think the majority of the cracking is improperly installed and from what I’ve seen the rubber feet touching the glass a little is actually not wrong and is why they designed the rubber feet the way they did. But end of the day the pads shouldn’t even over hang the glass should be purely on the pillars.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Cracked roof using roof rack w/ cargo box
- Thread starter Jpandes
- Start date
If your car breaks down do you just abandon it and buy another??
agree. It's simply a poorly designed product.
the feet should be longer and narrower- using the header beams more and completely avoiding the glass.
5 mm narrower, and a few cm longer, it would be very stable and no risk of glass damage.
AlexHung
Member
That makes sense. The elbows are probably a standard crossbar part across Yakima's gutterless racks and they just made custom feet without thinking it through and basically a compromised design for this application.
stopcrazypp
Well-Known Member
From what I have read, after installing with no load, the rubber feet should not touch the glass at all (a piece of paper should be able to slip under it). They put rubber there probably to allow for some flexing and it will absorb some shock in case it flexes. If after installing it, the rubber feet are already touching or already is putting significant pressure on the glass, that seems like a recipe for failure of the glass once a significant load is placed on it.
In some cases, the roof glass was installed unevenly and it raises up above on one side. I read that in that case, Tesla replaces the glass under warranty if it breaks from the roof rack, given the failure was because of uneven glass.
It seems a lot of people installing assume that the glass is what takes the load, so they install it so that the rubber is putting an active load on the glass, when the reality is that it was designed so the roof rails are what are supposed to take the load.
From other thread, you can see the clip is secured by the welded section in the roof, it does not depend on the glass at all.
Cracked roof glass from Tesla’s own Surfrack
Interesting.
Since they are a fixed width, there is no error possible in setting up the width of the crossbars.
The L-brackets are simply locating brackets. At 3Nm, that is very low torque spec. It is not intended to hold weight, just hold the rack in place.
Pulling forces would be on the nut and the L-bracket and mounting tab. (3Nm is barely beyond finger tight with the wing nut)
At this torque spec, a torque wrench is critical. It should absolutely be included, and if not, have it installed by Tesla. That is probably the key factor in the install.
Breaking of the old brackets indicates there is a cantilever force on those brackets. The original bracket was welded with only vertical load in mind.
Full perimeter weld to stop bending forces. I wonder if the bracket itself is a thicker gauge steel?
I looked at the installation materials and can only think of several ways it could touch glass:
1. There is enough flex in the crossbars for the legs to bend inward, into the glass.
2. The load compresses the rubber feet, loosening the nut and giving enough play for the rack to shift over- thus putting weight on the glass.
3. Over torque the nut, bending the L-bracket(loosens the mount), forcing the foot into the glass. Put a load on the bars adds more flex to push into the glass.
4. Same as 3, except it allows side shifting to land one foot into the glass.
Since the feet are rubber, the rack will compress with load.
I think it would be prudent
1. Check the feet are not touching the glass on installation.
2. to torque to 3Nm, tug at bars in all directions per instructions.
3.have the rack sit in full sun (soften the feet),
4.put on your heaviest load, and then torque again to 3Nm.
Since they are a fixed width, there is no error possible in setting up the width of the crossbars.
The L-brackets are simply locating brackets. At 3Nm, that is very low torque spec. It is not intended to hold weight, just hold the rack in place.
Pulling forces would be on the nut and the L-bracket and mounting tab. (3Nm is barely beyond finger tight with the wing nut)
At this torque spec, a torque wrench is critical. It should absolutely be included, and if not, have it installed by Tesla. That is probably the key factor in the install.
Breaking of the old brackets indicates there is a cantilever force on those brackets. The original bracket was welded with only vertical load in mind.
Full perimeter weld to stop bending forces. I wonder if the bracket itself is a thicker gauge steel?
I looked at the installation materials and can only think of several ways it could touch glass:
1. There is enough flex in the crossbars for the legs to bend inward, into the glass.
2. The load compresses the rubber feet, loosening the nut and giving enough play for the rack to shift over- thus putting weight on the glass.
3. Over torque the nut, bending the L-bracket(loosens the mount), forcing the foot into the glass. Put a load on the bars adds more flex to push into the glass.
4. Same as 3, except it allows side shifting to land one foot into the glass.
Since the feet are rubber, the rack will compress with load.
I think it would be prudent
1. Check the feet are not touching the glass on installation.
2. to torque to 3Nm, tug at bars in all directions per instructions.
3.have the rack sit in full sun (soften the feet),
4.put on your heaviest load, and then torque again to 3Nm.
Last edited:
You are thinking of the feet as a spring. That should not be the case. By your statement, that would also mean the rack is loose with any load on it.
If the nut tightened further with load, that would mean you have the correct torque spec with load. The rubber feet have compressed and 'settled in'.
I would be concerned with the feet not slipping with load. Empty, there is no real concern of movement.
If you want to test this out, put the load on, drive around, then remove the load and tug on the cross bars in all directions.
Then torque to 3Nm without load.
Additionally, I would frequently inspect that the feet have not shifted sideways.
even tightened under torque some sit on the glass like i said spoke with man SC folks at 3 different places and they have seen most racks touching and some not, they had played around with mine like i did in the garage to get it to not touch the glass ever so slightly and could not, before i had brought it to them i spent 3 hours out there trying to get them to sit perfectly but to no avail
That's really disappointing to hear.
I hope Tesla pushes for a redesign from the vendor (Yakima). Really, if the feet came over the sides more, it would make it impossible for the rack to shift into the glass. Also a redesign of the bracket so there is a true vertical load and not a cantilever (stepped bracket instead of a L)
I'll wait to buy a rack since the risk isn't worth the trouble.
i doubt they will like as its said i know people with Roofnest sleeping on there Y's and there rubber feet touching and no issues with with it and thats with about 700 with people and the tent, if installed properly even with the rubber feat touching the chance of breaking is very very slim
Reminds me of the saying, "Close only counts in horseshoes and handgrenades"
Unfortunately, unlike metal, Glass is never "a little bit" damaged. It is or it isn't.
I guess putting anything close to a glass roof comes with inherent risk but boy, that rack design doesn't help.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Problem with skis on a roof rack is that they pick up a lot of road grit. Not good for bindings or bases.
I've never had an issue using the ski rack until this weekend. Drove from Whistler to Seattle with 4 sets on top and found a chunk taken out of the topsheet of one of my skis. Considering a roof box now but am hesitant due to the efficiency hit. I only lost ~7-10% range with 4 sets on top in moderately windy conditions and cold temps with the ski rack.
MikeGracz
Member
Incidentally, The nut that tightens the feet to the L-bolt is different than a normal nut. It is shaped like a donut, in that you don't use a normal socket to tighten it, you need a hex wrench-type driver that fits in the donut hole- like an allen wrench that can be attached to your torque wrench (see pic)
Similar threads
