Peter Kelly December 11, 2015 09:36 AM This really would be a huge leap forward (so much so that it's amazing there isn't more hype!), but I hope they don't ignore the one possible flaw should it make its way into future cars: that is the possible consequences of corrosion.I presume the strength is, for the most part, directly proportional to the thickness, but if the rate of corrosion is the same then the time to failure will effectively be less and, disconcertingly, of the same order of the benefits, i.e. if the item is a third thinner it will fail a third of the time sooner. So, if your car would normally last 10 years that could come down to 6 or 7.That said, I don't think the benefits should be understated. I'd love to add 25% of mileage to my electric car, just by having it made from this material! Bob Stuart December 11, 2015 09:59 AM Finally, some numbers. I see that 7% = 30%, or "vast." This looks interesting, but even 19th century piano wire is strong and ductile, being able to wrap around its own diameter. Maybe the Charpy test for absorbed energy is the one you need to quote to make sense. oldguy December 11, 2015 11:27 AM Hooray cheaper cars!!! Oh wait, just more profit......... Catweazle December 11, 2015 12:28 PM No word on its corrosion resistance, especially all-important stress corrosion? Joe123 December 11, 2015 01:50 PM We are now one step closer to the Battle Star. why? December 11, 2015 01:54 PM Yay? The auto industry is still testing and refomulating composites and ceramics from the early 80's for cyclonic fatigue, flash processed steels may have some use in crash cages, but before we see any real benifits or use there's decades of research ahead. Galvanized steel will not corrode, an average junk yard car sitting around without any rust on its frame is sufficient enough proof, however there's plenty of ill will here, many auto body parts attached to the frame are not plated so please stop the corrosion train of thought. Bruce H. Anderson December 11, 2015 02:03 PM I remember the original article, and hoping it was the real deal. So this is good news. In the automotive space, even for dinosaur-burners, this has some serious potential for improved efficiency. Looks like a win-win. Bob Flint December 11, 2015 03:02 PM The corrosion is also the first thought I had as well. A lot can be done with secondary protective coatings, but the chemical composition of the base metal will have a major impact on longevity. Coming straight out of the press, & treatment would need to be reviewed. mhpr262 December 11, 2015 03:15 PM That is great news - time to start thinking about selling your Alcoa stock .... corrosion might be an issue in theory, but usually manufacturers have corrosion very well in hand today. The massive cost-saving will leave plenty of room for even better and more thorough measures. Matt Fletcher December 11, 2015 03:37 PM The new material has issues just as as important as corrosion. The figures given are for tensile strength not compression strength. Tensile strength is great for the lab but what happens when your hit from the side by a truck with 2mm of material? It's also brittle.