Do you need crumple zones where the onboard systems can detect a crash or situations which lead to a crash and take avoiding action? Another way to look at this use of stainless steel, is in a high velocity impact, which type of crumple zone would you want protecting you? The current standards or the Tesla standard?
So is Tesla trying to rewrite the book and get allowances made for their lack of traditional crumple zones and pedestrian/cyclist safety with "dumb" cars/vehicles when considering their high tech approach, which might be as a simple as an automatic horn or other audible warning in situations the computer deems to be risk? I see many people not using horns when they should.
Many existing car manufacturers have jumped on the touchscreen control systems, yet Volvo spent alot of time and money decades ago researching that knobs were the best human interface when driving and needing to control essential controls.
If you listen to this Youtube influencer for Porsche, he's explaining how everything is digitized so he can go into the cars settings/control panel and make changes to the car when changing from driving in the UK to driving in the EU. https://youtu.be/gND5jJGzKXw?t=158
Some cars are restricted to a top speed of 150mph unless the GPS reports the car is at the GPS location of known race tracks, when the 150mph limit is automatically removed. So after watching STG in the link above, I ask myself, why cant the car's systems recognise where I am from the GPS co-ordinates and automatically do it for me? Is this a test, where if I dont make the changes to drive legally in the EU, Porsche report to local law enforcment a british car without its headlights switched from driving on the left or driving on the right?
Likewise is this setting with Porsche cars and some types of lights even necessary when considering how the new LED lights which automatically dim when detecting other vehicles to prevent dazzling, arguably dont need any directional change when driving on the left or right hand side of the road.
Example seen here https://youtu.be/HETnJmgcPGs?t=16 Dimmed lighting section seen in the middle of the screen, wait a few seconds and you'll see it light up the darkened section as there are now no cars to dazzle so maximum brightness can be restored.
> Or how it could have "bulletproof" glass windows when current vehicles require a certain lower threshold to allow egress in an emergency.
Was this a failed demonstration of bulletproof glass an example of read the small print, they can sell you and make whatever claim, ultimately its the small print that counts and the laws of the land that count?
Was it just a marketing exercise? A PR exercise, much like vapourware is seen in the software industry?
Edit.
Tracking the ebb and flow of articles, is highly illuminating. Thank you.
What's my car supposed to do when I'm two back at a red light and some goofball rear ends me?
I never quite understood how a solid stainless steel frame could ever pass those associated crash safety requirements. Basically "Jaws of Life"-proof. You wedge that door, you're basically living (or dying) there for the next who-knows-how-long.
Or how it could have "bulletproof" glass windows when current vehicles require a certain lower threshold to allow egress in an emergency.
I don't care that it's ugly. I actually appreciated the utilitarian aesthetic, coming with a built-in air compressor, outlets galore, etc. But the other things just seems to scream "something's gotta give before the NHTSB gives the go-ahead".