Yesterday, we told you about the Big News about Tesla’s cheaper cars, which are de-contented versions of the Model 3 and Model Y, called the Model 3 and Model Y Standard. Tesla cheapness engineers took out a number of things from the entry-model cars, including power mirror controls, audio system speakers, front and rear light bars, used fabric seat upholstery instead of leather, and, in the case of the Model Y Standard, eliminated the panoramic glass roof. Well, that’s not exactly right; they eliminated the ability of the people in the car to use the glass roof, which is not exactly the same thing as replacing the glass panel with a lighter and cheaper material, like steel or plastic. It’s much, much worse.
Let me be clear about something here right off the bat: I think that Tesla knows exactly what they’re doing, and the solution they arrived at was the one that met the goals of saving as much money as possible on the building of these cars. As counterintuitive as their roof solution may sound, I have no doubt that it is in fact the cheapest way to do this. I’m not here to cast doubt on Tesla’s competence when it comes to finding the optimal way to save money.
What I am here to do is complain, loudly, about how much this particular solution sucks, and how it feels like a cruel punch to the crotch for people who maybe don’t have as much money to spend on a car. Economically, sure, I’ll buy that it makes sense. But ethically and culturally and conceptually, this is just a miserable symptom of how twisted life has become.
Let’s just recap what is going on here with the Tesla Model Y Standard’s roof; the other trim levels of the Model Y incorporate a nice panoramic glass roof. This is a fairly common option on cars today – and has been for a while now – and it’s something that I think genuinely makes interiors more airy and open and pleasant. A large chunk of glass in a roof is also a lot heavier than a steel roof and there’s potential for leaks, as well as less thermal and sound insulation when compared to a conventional steel roof and headliner, so it’s not like that pleasing airy feeling is completely free.
The Model Y standard has such a glass roof, but, as you can see from those screengrabs above, the glass is blocked in the interior of the car by an opaque headliner. The video those screenshots are from shows all this, and the host of the video spoke with Tesla representatives who confirmed that, thanks to vendor arrangements and manufacturing processes, it’s actually cheaper to just build these with a glass roof and then block it off.
I don’t doubt that this is true, though I can think of examples in the past where a version of a car replaced glass panels for cheaper and lighter steel panels, like this Volkswagen Type 3 Panel Van:
I guess the manufacturing process was more human-oriented back then, and simpler overall? Again, I have no doubt Tesla picked the cheapest path, it’s just hard to wrap my head around it.
Here’s that video so you can see:
In the video, it’s also noted that blocking the big window in the roof allows for the HVAC system to work less hard, so there is an estimated 5% efficiency gain, so that’s nice.
Also, I don’t care, because conceptually I dislike the idea of this roof so very much.
Just think about what is going on here: they wanted a cheaper version of their car, and in their research, one of the “premium” elements of the car – the panoramic roof – turned out to not be cheaper to remove. In fact, it would have cost more to remove it. So, instead of thinking that’s great, people will get an even better, more enjoyable car for their money, they decided to design and engineer a new part – the Model Y standard headliner – that covers the panoramic roof, so you can’t get the benefits of it.
You still get many of the downsides – the increased weight, potential for leaks, higher repair costs compared to a steel roof – but zero of the enjoyment. All because you were callow and debased enough to want to pay a bit less for your car, like some sort of filthy animal.
Seriously, I would have preferred it if they offered a canvas roof instead of this; that at least would have some novelty and charm about it.
It’s only a punitive measure – it’s like if you got a cheap hotel room that faced a lovely view, but because the hotel didn’t think you paid enough, they painted over the window. Because fuck you, you poor sack of crap.
I also hate the oxymoronic and euphemistic way they describe the roof on their website:
“Closed glass roof?” The hell does that even mean? I guess the marketing team thought “useless glass roof” or “glass roof you don’t deserve, you impoverished loser” didn’t hit the tone they were going for?
I understand the thinking here: I understand that they want to differentiate the different trim levels, and being able to enjoy the panoramic roof may be one of those things that convinces a customer to pay the extra $5,000 or so to go up to the next trim level. I understand why they did something so seemingly inane. I get that it makes sense.
I also get that it sucks. I’m sure mosquitoes fill some important niche in the ecosystem, but I think they suck, too. This really isn’t any different from how companies like BMW tried to make heated seats and other features subscription-only, and we all hated that shit. It’s the same basic idea: you’re hauling around hardware in your car that the company is blocking you from using, and that a shitty thing. Though at least in the case of subscriptions, you could at least get the option to use the feature, like heated seats or whatever. In the Model Y standard, you can’t just pay something and be able to see out of your roof.
I’m sure you could tear out the headliner if you were really determined, and I wouldn’t blame you if you were.
I’m glad Tesla has a cheaper car available, but I can’t say I think it’s cheap enough, or that it’s cheap in the right ways. They still have those overcomplicated electrically-operated door handles, for example. They couldn’t have replaced those with some entirely functional and trouble-free mechanical handles?
Fundamentally, though, I just hate the whole thought process behind preventing a car buyer from having access to a feature built into the car just because the company doesn’t think you deserve it. It’s all avarice and cruelty, and as far as I’m concerned, this entire way of thinking can fuck right off. I don’t care if it makes sense for Tesla’s bottom line; it’s disrespectful for people who just want a cheaper car, and I don’t have to like it.
So there.
If Elon thinks this is a punishment, he might have misjudged how this will be received in warmer climates.
The glass roof in my Model 3 has its benefits (most notably, for taller drivers it is much easier to see stop lights looking through the roof than the windshield), but it makes the car incredibly hot. On warm days (which we get a lot of here in FL), the air within a foot or so of the glass roof is considerably warmer than the air in the rest of the passenger compartment. It is uncomfortable when your torso is getting blasted by cold AC yet your head is sweltering in 90 degree air. It would be nice if Tesla could offer a solution that allows you to keep your head cooler without having to blast yourself in the face with AC. Sure, Tesla offers an optional sunshade, but that isn’t very effective.
I’m not sure if this is possible, but it would be nice if Tesla could offer a kit to replace the glass roof with a traditional insulated metal roof. That might be worth the expensive given the improved comfort and reduced energy consumption.
A good quality ceramic tint will take care of the heat issue, but that’s another cost for the consumer to bear.
If someone gets limo tint on their roof, is that an excuse for the police to pull you over?
Asking for a friend.
No, there’s no legal limit on the roof in any state. Makes sense, given many if not most cars don’t have a window there anyway.
If the driver is a minority, you bet.
I considered a ceramic tint, but apparently a lot of shops won’t do it because it comes with a high risk of the glass roof cracking. Otherwise, I would absolutely do that.
It’s a remote possibility but I think those shops just don’t want to do it and use it as an excuse.
Plenty of Tesla (and other glass roof car) owners have had tint for years with no issues.
I wonder if condensation inside the glass roof would cause mold on the enclosed headliner.
Not to worry, I’m sure Tesla’s engineers have absolutely 100% thought of this.
Ask Mercedes!
<upside down laughing emoji>
This doesn’t matter.
Let’s say you want to fly somewhere. You check prices and you get;
Spirit $250
Southwest $275
Frontier $267
Delta $229
Wait, Delta is in the pack! Let’s dig deeper. Oh, you want to pick your own seat? $30/connection. You want to have a carry on $40/connection. Or you can just pay $150 more and you can pick any seat you want in the back within sniffing range of the can. Oh, you want a nicer seat with more leg room? $150 more. Next thing you know, you have spent $729 on a nice Delta flight. But never shopped United or American, because those are expensive airlines.
That’s what Telsa is doing. They are intentionally making the cheap Tesla as bad as possible to punish you for not picking a better model. The idea is that your mind will think “Telsa’s aren’t that expensive” and not look at similar priced competitors from other manufacturers, because you think the vehicle is a cheap one, because the punisher version was in the same range as the cheap ones.
This is a VERY old way of selling cars. Remember the Versa S back when? There were tons of cars that were just as nice and just as cheap as a normal Versa, but nothing that was in the same price range as a used car. It’s just that not all the windows rolled up and down, it didn’t have a radio or AC and the….
I think I remember one of Lucid’s engineers claiming that the glass roof actually weighed less than a traditional steel one, because although the glass panel itself is heavier than the outer skin of sheet steel, the glass is more rigid and so requires less structure underneath and there’s also the weight savings of no headliner and no insulation
Maybe this will give us some clue as to the size of the vampire market?
This is where Tesla (and Autopian memberships) get it wrong. Cloth beats vinyl every time.
Well, well, this certainly puts a whole new spin on the phrase “Glass Ceiling.”
I would rather have it this way. The all-glass roof is stupid if you live in a place with brutal sun for most of the year, as I do. Just yet another example of Tesla doing dumb shit because Elon thought it’s “cool”. They sure didn’t save any money making the whole roof glass. Though the early ones flying off on the highway was certainly entertaining.
Those car/vans with glass replaced by metal were not so much cheaper to build, but that many European countries required no windows in the back to qualify for much cheaper commercial registration and taxes. At an extreme, Sweden has a weird classification where cars with no rear seat and a limited top speed can be registered as “A-tractors” and 15yos can drive them on the road with a moped license.
idea… sunshade
Which makes the expensive glass roof even more pointless.
not really, its like saying having a top on a convertible is pointless
A *fake* convertible top is pointless. One that opens has a point – assuming, of course, that you use it.
A glass roof covered with a sunshade that is never opened is as useless as a fake convertible top. If you like having the glass roof – GREAT – but give those of us who do NOT want the glass roof the option to NOT have a glass roof. Just like those who don’t want a convertible top have the option (usually, except for Miatas) of buying a coupe.
Permanently blocking off a glass roof is as asinine as the olden days of Intel SX processors being a DX with the assed manufacturing step of disabling the math co-processor, so they actually cost more to manufacturer just so they could sell them for less.
Also, if you are using it as a work van, you don’t want loose tools or pipes or whatever accidentally smashing the windows, and you don’t want people peering in to see what you have in there
Certainly true. But in most of Europe, if you wanted the commercial registration, you didn’t get a choice in the matter, unlike here in the US.
I see many other car brands with glass pano roofs. What’s the difference?
None – they are all stupid. I am stuck with one on my BMW wagon as that was the only way they were sold here in the States – but at least it *opens* (both panels) which makes it a little bit useful on a nice day. This fixed glass nonsense is just that – nonsense.
Didn’t Tesla do the exact same thing with the Model S where they all had the same size batteries and they limited the capacity through software for the cheaper versions? Autopilot is the same as well, although that can be activated later via software.
Here’s a good cost-saving feature that would actually be popular: Remove the Autopilot hardware from the base model. That’s gotta save a decent amount, right?
autopilot is an extra, so it wouldn’t affect the starting price
Probably not. Cameras are cheap and it would require complicating the manufacturing process.
A simple manufacturing process was the key to Tesla’s success this whole time. Building all cars to be roughly the same and using software to limit features is cheaper than building cars “a la carte”.
I don’t like it either.
Tesla already dropped the real “autopilot” hardware from its entire line when it dropped LIDAR.
What’s the over/under on how long it takes for a Youtube video to go up once this becomes available that shows exactly how to cut out that headliner and trim it out with some generic pieces and some spray adhesive?
I’d take the under. I’m already thinking that $5k buys a lot of X-Acto blades.
I’m a silver-linings kind of guy. For example, I really appreciate that I have so much flexibility in my hamstrings from spending all of my time bent over holding my ankles, thanks to our wealthy overlords.
It all just seems like a ploy to get people into the showroom and upsell them into the standard versions of the vehicles.
Great, one step up from spray painting the windows. Might as well do the rest, call it a panel delivery, and give us new candy vans in 20 years.
Or I guess they might already be candy vans.
This reminds me of when I had a Jeep YJ with the 4 cyl. Jeep offered a 20-gallon gas tank as an option instead of the 15-gallon standard tank. In reality, all YJs had the same tank installed. The difference is that the 15-gallon tank has a vent tube inserted that traps a 5-gallon bubble of air at the top of the tank tricking the gas station pump to click off early. By removing the vent tube you could upgrade yourself to a 20 gal tank for free!
I remember reading somewhere (not from Chrysler) that this was to meet emissions though? They couldn’t meet emissions standards with the 4.0L and a full 20gal tank, so by carrying 5gal less fuel, it was just light enough get fractionally better mileage and pass the test. My 4.0L YJ only holds 15gal.
Same sort of dumb reason that the original GM G-bodies had those fixed rear door windows and some other stuff left off. To save the weight of the regulators.
My car (EU type approval) has a stupid(*) high tyre pressure recommendation for the load that is used during type approval, and a *lower* pressure with *higher* load. But I guess it got it in a lower tax bracket.
(*) Tyres sound like basket balls dribling, and wear out the center of the thread.
Isn’t that David’s story from earlier this week?
David’s story was inspired by this comment.
I feel like the only reason its cheaper is they know they aren’t gonna sell enough of these to make it worth redoing the entire roof with a steel panel- in the long term over enough cars that has to be cheaper right?
I’m not a huge moonroof or glass roof fan. Rarely ever have used them.
I’ve only used the moon /sun roof on two cars in my life. Both didn’t have AC.
I’ve had one car with a sunroof, and I ended up only opening it up to let the hot air out for two minutes when using the A/C on hot days. Otherwise it was closed, with the solid shade over it. I don’t need the sun beating down on my head, and I’ve got four other windows that roll down.
I loved the sun roof on my SAAB. Shutting it was like shutting the door and was very satisfying. I used the one on my second Prius a few times, but not enough to warrant getting it. That’s one of the things I don’t have about Toyotas. It’s hard to get exactly what you want.
I don’t feel too insulted by this and if anything it makes me excited that there is sure to be someone who’ll figure out a way to uncover the glass roof and show us all how to do it on their YouTube channel.
It’s going to be just a few milliseconds before a new headliner pops up on Aliexpress and Temu. What’s preventing me from buying this cheap version and just replace the covered headliner with just a trimmed frame?
Wow. Inverted landau top was not on my 2025 bingo card. Welcome back.
For a company whose market cap is in trillions, you’d typically wouldn’t expect this type of chintz. I mean, if toyota pulled this kind of shit, people would be very outraged. With Tesla, Musk saves the day once again and asks for another $50 bazillion dollars to be added to his compensation.
“It’s not half-assed, it’s *minimalist*.”
Minimal-assed
Toyota pulls some half-assed stuff too. The Taco that I used to have didn’t have interval wipers. I was like, “Wait, that’s optional?”
You’re technically correct. The best kind of correct
“Seriously, I would have preferred it if they offered a canvas roof instead of this; that at least would have some novelty and charm about it.”
Hence, the 2CV.
A Tesla with a sardine can roll-top Citroen roof would be something.
Comparing the interior shot of the cheaper interior with a normal one, it appears that covering the glass allows them to use a single piece headliner versus the multi-piece headliner that lines the edges of where the glass meets the roof frame on the normal version.
Theoretically, this should save them time and labor costs for installation, but I’m not privy to the assembly process of a Model Y.
Thank-you – this was a crucial piece of information missing from the piece, re wouldn’t it just be cheaper to leave the whole roof assembly as-is?
Although even if this is correct, the cost savings must be minimal vs the impact on the product, not to mention yet more bad PR for Tesla.
For that to actually save any money, id guess they’d need to really sell a serious amount of these base models, because each car is now using more material and they just added a different process to the assembly line and a couple of different parts that have to be inventoried
No it uses less material since it doesn’t need garnish moldings around the opening. From what I’ve read elsewhere they start off as the same piece and for the closed version they skip the step of cutting the hole in the middle. It also means they don’t have to throw the piece cut out in the dumpster further reducing the suppliers cost. It also didn’t need any new engineering or tooling so it was one of the few changes that was basically free. Now a lot of the other changes required engineering and tooling to implement like the new bumper cover, center console, head and tail lights.
There is a lot more material going into the car square footage wise – they really throw away 90+% of the headliner material they’re buying?
One large headliner is probably cheaper than multiple smaller ones, even if the larger one uses more actual material. You have to consider the tooling for multiple pieces is costlier than one large one and the labor of making those multiple pieces takes more time to create and install.
Headliner is also an area you dont want poor fitment, meaning you’re doing quality checks on each of the different pieces to ensure proper tolerances between each other. One large piece only needs to be checked on the outermost perimeter, saving time.
So I’m probably one of like 7 people who think there is merit to doing it up this way, and it was mentioned only briefly in the article and in the video: The gaining of efficiency back through making the HVAC system having to deal with less heat in the cabin.
I’ve been in enough Teslas and other glass roof cars to know that it gets hotter easier no matter what kind of tint or electrochromic hoo-ha you put on it. Absent spending millions and millions of dollars to design in metal panel and its associated press tooling, and likely re-crash testing it because you’ve changed the structure of the car fundamentally (as modern flush-bonded glass contributes a lot of rigidity to unibody cars), just putting a headliner in was probably the best tradeoff cost-wise.
I think it’s a bit silly but not malicious like Jason does, but taken in context with the smaller wheels, the engineering side was probably trying to stretch the range as much as possible as some crumbs of consumer appeal, in the face of deleting literally everything else. To be honest I wasn’t sure what else you could really strip out of a M3/MY.
(I do think a lot of the feature reduction list is actually a blessing, being not a fan of electrically actuated and motorized touchscreen doohickeys. Now put it all in a van)
This design still lets the heat through the glass and traps it inside, so unless there’s a lot of insulation in that headliner, it’s going to heat up, which will in turn heat the rest of the cabin. I don’t think that’s too big a deal, but I don’t think HVAC efficiency is what Tesla was thinking when they made that particular change.
That’s a good article. Compare that to the premium and see if it works. You’ll also be telling those people to stop buying those shades on amazon and put in heat rejecting ceramic tints instead.
But you know, it’s the feeling of “I’m not that poor I can waste more money buying a shade.” is what counts.
Could you in theory buy one and then replace the headliner to make the roof “useable”
I wouldn’t be surprised if they put some kind of sensor in the headliner that throws an error code if the original isn’t installed. Just like printers. Hell, even my blender has a sensor so you can’t use aftermarket cups.
Thanks I hate it, somehow this is worse then planned obsolescence.
Ahh, just like BMWs “radiator recognition sensor” on some earlier PZEV cars. The radiator was coated with some magic that reduced pollutants of air passing through it. It was $$$ and required as part of the PZEV rating, so a sensor was added that would illuminate the MIL and throw a code if it was replaced with a much cheaper non PZEV model
Not just BMW. Mercedes did it too – but Mercedes sells the sensor separately from the radiator at least. Same sensor, different wiring connector.
The 2000 Sentra CA (Clean Air) was the first one of these I remember. I dont think it had a sensor for the radiator. Dont see anything on the wiring diagram to indicate it
Probably something the Feds required starting later than that? No way would BMW and Mercedes go to the added expanse if they didn’t have to, since all it does is make sure you don’t put the non-coated radiator in the car as a replacement.
What years were those? My ’06 Honda Accord is PZEV rated and has no such fancy radiator. I just checked Amazon and a replacement is like $50.
Started in ~2003 and went to ~2010. The coated radiator in and of itself is not a requirement for PZEV rating – BMW chose to leverage the radiator as part of getting that rating
Google AI filled me in:
“Understanding the BMW DORS Radiator
What is a DORS Radiator?
The Direct Ozone Reduction System (DORS) radiator is a specialized component designed to reduce ozone emissions in certain BMW models. It works alongside the vehicle’s cooling system to maintain optimal engine temperatures while meeting environmental regulations.”
From that I got this:
“The N51 manual Genuine BMW radiator includes a special coating that converts ozone into oxygen. This coating helped BMW with California emissions certification and the coating is required for all replacement SULEV radiators. The radiator actually has a compliance sensor fused to the back of the radiator to ensure the coating is applied and active, as well as feeding coolant temperature information to the engine computer. A new sensor is included on this radiator. Using a non-SULEV radiator without the coating will trigger a fault code and check engine light. The sensor is not available separately from BMW and is not easily removed without damaging it.”
https://www.bimmerworld.com/Cooling/Radiators/Genuine-BMW-Radiator-17117566339-E82-E90-E92-E93-SULEV.html
That radiator is $582. WTF?!
Meanwhile Honda (and probably others) managed to put out their own PZEV vehicles in the same timeframe without any special coatings or sensors on the radiator. Those radiators are $50. And I’m still on my original 20 years later.
The more I learn about German engineering the more I want to steer well clear of it.
The reason the example “1600 Varevogn” had no rear windows has to do with taxation in different countries and different periods, to allow a vehicle designed for personal use to be taxed as a comercial vehicle.
Same reason for some strange conversions of luxury vehicles to pickups a couple of decades ago here. I know a couple have been featured here, or on that other site, with no explanation. Here it is.
“Panel Van” Wagons with opaque/steel rear windows were common during that period even in the US. They were mostly for tradesmen who needed a covered cargo area before utility vans took over that niche.
The retro PT Cruiser and Chevy HHR were available as panel van wagons in the 2000’s.
Those were cool. Almost as a successor to that, Ram sold a version of the Grand Caravan with blocked out rear windows as the C/V Tradesman.
Also in the 1970’s Chevrolet sold the Vega Panel Express and Ford had the Pinto Panel Wagon.