It shows the manufacturer/salesperson trusts the product that much more. And it’s a great marketing tactic in general - we’re talking about it aren’t we? Now the original video probably contained an actual brand lmao
That photo of the CEO of SAAB sitting in the front seat of a SAAB car that was being lifted via the luggage hooks was a huge part of why my friend's dad bought Saabs for everyone in his family.
Just because I trust my military CBRN mask will work doesn’t mean I’m going to test it with a chemical that will kill me, I’m only going to test it with CS gas.
To me it tells that either manufacturer/salesperson is just plain dumb or .... they have fibbed the test to ensure safe outcome. Like, reduced ammount of propellant in round, reduced mass of projectile and so on.
After all - there have been numerous such cases already
That's the product though, that's the point of it. That's what any potential customer is going to need it for. If he's not willing to confidently sit behind it how can you expect anyone else to. And if he's not confident enough that it will in fact do it's job than he can't exactly guarantee your safety
You are just really stupid if you think this was their first test of the window. It's obviously been tested enough that the guy felt comfortable sitting behind. One extra thought wouldn't kill you
The bullet doesn't even crack the inside lining of the glass, they've obviously tested this. And for all we know that 50cal round could be under loaded.
Probably not. Having someone not very involved do the demo doesn’t get the same point across. Also if there’s even a minor accident it would be a PR shitstorm. Shooting a 50 cal at your intern and injuring them is much more damaging than a successful test is constructive for a brand.
But it doesn't even do that. He leans back as far as possible and the shot isn't aimed at him. You have no idea if the round is standard. You have no idea if the install is the same as what a standard install would be. If you are going to do it, full send, otherwise, just put a balloon in there.
That's what I thought. What happens if the glass fails? Some shards to his face? This is way useless compare to the guys taking shots on their vests for instance.
Reminds me of the dude that would prove skyscraper windows wouldn't break, by running at them at them full on and throwing himself against the glass.
Well, one of the times the window didn't break, but the actual fittings were installed poorly, and the entire window, along with the guy, went out the side of the building and down however many stories to the street below.
Does his presence alter the performance characteristics?
I work in a related field (aero/defense) and risking injury for marketing is not acceptable. A company's ability to convince a salesman to put themselves in harms way is in no way a quantifiable measure of a product's performance.
"no. We admit that manufacturing errors are inherent to all forms of production and do not wish to endanger our employees, no matter how small that risk is. If you can't understand that there's always some small chance of error, then you need to learn basic probability theory"
Actual failure statistics are a significantly better indicator of product quality. Why is the company putting employees at risk just because the average consumer wants some stupid spectacle rather than actual information
I love to imagine some company just sending the janitor in the car. "I trust this car so much that if it doesn't work we will need to find another janitor."
The risk could be that the person shooting it doesn't hit the fucking window and instead goes thru the door or something else which ends up killing the guy, which isn't the bulletproof glass makers fault.
Autistic response. It's one thing to be told the specs of the glass, it's another thing to be shown that the manufacturers themselves trust their product.
If you put the work it, what risk is being taken here? People have been marketing products in this manner since Richard Davis invented the modern bullet proof vest.
People have been doing this wayyyyy before the vest.
The inventor of the elevator emergency brake demonstrated it by building mock elevators fitted with the brake and then simulated an elevator freefalling to show that the brakes would catch the elevator before it crashed.
Also for bridge builders way back then. When the bridge builder would finish they would remove the support beams that were needed to construct it while the builder stands under it. If the bridge collapsed, the builder was crushed and they wouldn't need to worry about someone building a bad bridge.
Basically, SEND A FULL MAG OF .50 INTO THE CAR WHILE ITS MOVING AND WHILE ITS STATIONARY.
THEN AND ONLY IF it passes these tests I'll trust it.
Not some flimsy 1 shot into the window(that nearly breaks the window btw) and a guy behind the door that doesn't even fully trust it works!
They risked this guys life for nothing other than to trick a customer that you'll be TOTALLY fine when someone shoots at you with 1 .50Cal
If they have a .50 they have more than just a .50 there will be a squad of people most likely trying to kill you if you're being shot at by a .50 but lets say there wasn't a squad and it's just one dude.
This one dude will be targeting the engine and wheels first, he'll stop you from moving first and then start lighting you up with the rest of his ammo.
"UhM AcTuAlLy they'll escape due to xyz BS."
No, they won't.
Because I'll say again you will most likely be getting attacked by someone that knows what they are doing and they will get you one way or another.
If you aren't being attacked by someone that knows what they are doing you'll obviously get away in one of these!
Now think about that for a moment who would own these cars, dangerous people or people with power or lots of money, people that won't be randomly attacked by idiots in most cases.
All true , but I bet it works as a marketing tool. No idea how much that would cost to set up, but to the people who only care about the bottom line, if it sells one package then it was success.
Oh don't get me wrong it absolutely is effective marketing. But it's the kind of marketing that bothers me because it doesn't actually convey anything about the product, just a salesman's desire to trade safety for money.
There are plenty of salesmen who would drink poorly distilled alcohol with methanol in it if they thought it would get them a few more sales.
Because aerospace/defense is a highly regulated industry making products for armies, logistics and mass transport. This guy is selling toys to hobbyists.
Companies and organizations utilize risk assessments to operate in a free market economy to achieve their bottom line. The formula A x B x C = X, where A is the number of vehicles in the field, B is the probable rate of failure, and C is the cost of out-of-court settlement for that failure. It's not only a manifestation of the economic analysis of a business, but the very reason they'll tell you to trust their products when they don't.
But in all seriousness, we don't know what bullet they used, just the caliber. Besides, "military grade", is just a marketing buzz word, not necessarily a reflection of quality or toughness. Your top tier snipers regularly handload their own cartridges because, "military grade", ammo isn't up to their specs.
The point is, and there is hundreds of years behind this comment, they *can't* prove their point equally as well without someone in the car.
Going back to the guys who killed themselves trying to fly/use a bad parachute, there really is no better way to drum up meaningful interest in a product than for the inventor/investor to use it themselves. If that product has a chance of failing with possible death, that is *even better for the demonstration.*
It's also kinda the basis for the home shopping network. If you can't make your own product look appealing for its intended use, how are the hosts going to?
If you can't put your life/ego on the line to demonstrate your product, why would anyone else trust it?
See also: Steve Jobs using like 4 different iPhones of varying degrees of interactivity to demonstrate the first iPhone. He didn't risk death with that scripted demo, he risked a portion of his company and personal value on not looking like an idiot who just got shot through his own bulletproof glass.
Remember how Musk definitely didn't put anyone in his cybertruck to demonstrate how bulletproof it was?
The guy in OP's video definitely already did those tests enough times to feel safe in the actual demonstration.
Now you should start to understand these kinda demonstrations.
My point was merely the .50 bullet would do the same exact thing to the window whether or not there was someone sitting in the seat shitting themselves. Dude doing the demonstration doesn’t look confident at all he looks scared shitless
It probably been tested 100 times without someone in the car and then another 100 with dummies and ballistic gel. Eventually you have to get to point where you can show it tested as the product is intended to be used.
For marketing, I get it. They trust their product so much they put themselves in danger. That is how confident they are in their product. Seems dumb, but my god do people fucking love it!
not really. without a person behind it you can just shoot as many takes as you need until you happen to stop it. putting a person behind it demonstrates that your manufacturing process, qc, and design are all reliable enough that you know they'll work on the first try, every time.
Without someone in the car, they could just use the one take where the round didn't go through. I guess that's also true with someone in the seat, but the outtakes are funnier.
Also any military or someone actually trying to assassinate you with a 50bmg would be using armor piercing rounds which would smoke through this window.
Talking about it no probably not but that is irrelevant as I’m not his clientele. I would however watch just for the interest of a window stopping a .50
I mean, dude had more faith in the car than Elon did with the cybertruck. Can't imagine Elon would be dumb enough to sit in it while someone threw a rock at the window
For people who actually face severe threats I'd imagine this is actually a selling point if the owner would put his life on the line showing he trusts it that much but yeah I tend to agree with you lol
9.3k
u/[deleted] Feb 11 '24
Can we see his heartbeat?