What's everyone's thoughts on this new glass? Looks like Ford will be jumping on the bandwagon!

http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2015/12/15/77385504/

No mention about pricing but with $2,000 ceramic brake rotors replacing $200 steel ones in high end sports cars, I can see a similar structure for the monkey windshields. Not much effect for this business for a few years until the costs drop enough for mass usage, at which point, the stronger glass will result in fewer replacement calls.

Reading what one can on the product, and progressions through various improvements of Gorilla Glass 1 through 4, and a new product called Lotus Glass, one can only wonder what and how this product will react to daily driving conditions in an automobile.

Surely, the car manufacturer has tested simulated "real world driving conditions", and isn't just shooting from the hip here. The benefits from added strength and scratch resistance are obvious, especially with the added benefit of thinner, and therefore, lighter weight.

But what no one seems to address, the real difference in where the product has been used to date, such as phones and other electronic device screens, is the issue of impact from small high speed projectiles or missile impact from those pesky lil' things we call rocks.

That in itself will be the test. If it's not much more resistant in that regard, then I can't see a huge reason for concern.

What I can see, is a proprietary part or product that won't be easily copied, and if this is tied to safety feature, (duh), then someone is going to have to prove that an "aftermarket" part that claims to be "equivalent" to the OEM, actually is.

The folks at NAGS had better be doing some serious research into this one, while they're listing "the attributes of the parts" because they've already dropped the ball on a PAAS issue that most certainly was a safety issue, when the AM parts mfg used an underside molding instead of a true PAAS system, and NAGS solution was to remove PAAS from the "offending" part's description, yet those parts with an underside molding seriously compromising the bonding surface area and width of the glass, remained in circulation, apparently.

On the other hand, like all "new" parts, expensive ones eventually come down in price, but if the OEM mfgs allow a patented and proprietary process to be effectively compromised by "$1.98 copies" that claim to be the same, and are critical to the safety systems in the automobile, then the only one left holding the bag when those cheaper parts are installed in the car, is the installer.

Avery VS SF: SF claimed repeatedly that they don't fix cars, they just pay to have them fixed. If the repairmen needed more money to properly fix the car, all they had to do was ask. (Loosely quoted from back in '99, if memory serves)

JMHNLO