Bugatti owner Rimac weighs in on 3D printing replacement parts for hypercar
Recently, a repair controversy surrounding a multi-million-dollar Bugatti Chiron Pur Sport hypercar damaged in an accident has pushed 3D printing technology into the spotlight of the automotive community.
The incident began when influencer Alex Gonzalez announced plans to repair his crash-damaged Bugatti, which had been "blacklisted" by the brand, using 3D-printed replacement parts. This bold declaration quickly drew a public response from Bugatti Rimac CEO Mate Rimac, igniting widespread discussion about unauthorized repairs versus safety responsibility.
This hypercar, valued at over $3.6 million with only 60 units produced globally, already incorporates high-tech components like a 3D-printed titanium exhaust tailpipe. After the accident, the official repair quote was as high as $1.7 million, and the vehicle was blacklisted, preventing any third party from obtaining original parts.
The Clash of Positions: Technical Freedom vs. Safety Control
The Owner & Viral Repair Specialists argue that in the absence of original parts, repairing non-critical components (like fenders and grilles) via 3D printing or other means is a reasonable choice. They accuse the brand of being motivated more by "control" than purely safety concerns.
The Clash of Positions: Technical Freedom vs. Safety Control
The Owner & Viral Repair Specialists argue that in the absence of original parts, repairing non-critical components (like fenders and grilles) via 3D printing or other means is a reasonable choice. They accuse the brand of being motivated more by "control" than purely safety concerns.
The Bugatti CEO emphasizes that hypercar components undergo extremely rigorous R&D and testing. Even though the brand uses 3D printing internally, it is not something easily replicated by ordinary workshops. He states that non-compliant repairs could endanger both the driver and public safety, and clarified some exaggerated part price rumors.
Currently, the repair team still hopes the brand will supply parts but has also stated they will rebuild the car "by any means necessary." At its core, this dispute has evolved from an initial technical discussion about repair methods into a deeper conflict over control of after-sales services by luxury car brands versus consumer rights to independent repair.
Regardless of the outcome, this event has become a landmark case, vividly illustrating the opportunities and challenges sparked by additive manufacturing technology in the high-end repair sector. It also forces the industry to consider how to balance innovation, safety, and consumer rights.
