I know this is a little pedantic but this article reads like a trainwreck to start with.
>According to a TUV expert
for anyone reading this outside Germany, thats a Technical Inspection Association. pretty vague as to what it does in the 21st century pertaining to vehicles specifically though...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technischer_%C3%9Cberwachungsv...
>because the inmates were not safe.
the nearly unilaterally agreed upon english definition for an inmate is not the same as passenger.
>sees black
in english, seeing black is a finance colloquialism at best. at worst, its a pejorative for racist tendencies. im guessing its a different sentiment in Germany entirely.
>Nothing is deformed in the event of an impact, instead enormous forces act on the occupants," says Teller in the "Automobilwoche". "Airbags will no longer help."
This is wildly speculative conjecture based on a single marketing event. No technical authority would ever dream of basing their evaluation on it...unless you wanted to get your name in the press alongside a hot new vehicle.
The concept we're trying to get at here is called a crumple zone. Tesla S, tesla 3, and virtually every other mass produced vehicle on the planet have them as part of a standard safety requirement. There is no reason to propose teslas new truck would not include them.
The article also completely ignores the long standing tradition of safety approval for bullet-proof vehicles. Mercedes G500 and BMW 7 series fitted with rigid armour plating and bulletproof glass are all approved for use in the EU and US. As for unibody vs body on frame construction, youre wrong. body on frame vehicles cannot BY DESIGN have crumple zones to protect pedestrians, and often score lower on crash tests as a result. https://autoreviewhub.com/unibody-vs-body-on-frame/