Originally Posted by JHGold

You didn't quite answer my question, what is the measurable impact? Then again the structural statement may be incorrect, the problem with some engineers, senior or junior, is in making violated assumptions on a design without fully understanding the design aspects. This usually happens with silo thinking. As we move towards design complexity and evolving vehicular designs, we start to rely on substantiation with systematic viewpoints.

In other words, it doesn't matter if there is a huge hole in the roof, what we are looking at is the way the load is applied. In this SQ5 design case which may be different than other trims, models and brands, do you know exactly how the stresses are transmitted?

On the CG analysis, keep in mind the SQ already weighs nearly 4200lbs so if we assume 85lbs weight difference between the roof options, then we are looking at approx 2% difference. How does this affect the SQ's CG with 255 tires and what's the approx impact threshold of CG changes? In a fully loaded, 80,000lb semi truck, the rollover threshold decreases by 0.005g for each 1 inch increase in CG. Cornering stiffness is negligible as well, yes? So if you ask does a non-roof option lower CG? Sure, by 0.0001g? I might as well reduce my 160lb frame with my big headed weight down a 1/10th of inch on my seat and call it even.


Again, my search tells me the tempered glass on 2012 Q's were not manufactured to specs (bad batch) and there was a recall. This is not a design flaw. This issue is resolved, to my knowledge.