Being able to 'fly' on private land without a licence is not sufficient for a yes.
Pre-arranged stunt(s) on public land being possible without any form of pilots licence is not sufficient for a yes.
If most US states do not allow use in public but some do, then 2 US states allowing its use in public within one year of the first delivery without any form of pilots licence will be sufficient for a yes resolution.
Close date will be extended to one year after first delivery if needed.
If it seems clear there will be no deliveries with features that allow aerial stunts then this question will be N/A'd.
Background
Different views seems possible
A Tesla Flying Car? I Don’t Know, Man
Musk acknowledged as much. “I’m not sure it’s necessarily legal in all jurisdictions," he said. “This is not necessarily a safety-optimized car.”
Any flying vehicle that weighs more than 250 or so pounds would need to go through an FAA approval process and require clearance to operate in the national airspace, says Michael McCormick, a former FAA official who now heads the Air Traffic Management program at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. Getting that certification, he predicts, could take “at least a year.” Your standard drivers license, meanwhile, wouldn’t cut it. Any Tesla owner piloting such a vehicle would likely have to obtain a recreational aviation license.
Actually taking off and landing the Roadster 2 would likely present its own set of issues. Most states require aircraft to take off from airports or designated helipads. Launching from the road to the air would fall under state or local rules, says Miller, and many places do not look kindly on the concept of sudden aircraft intrusions on their streets and highways.
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/tesla-finally-unveils-the-roadster-it-does-the-kick-flip-mid-air-goes-from-0-to-60-in-081-seconds-277116.html
No, you won't wave looking upwards to the Tesla driver traveling above the highway. Rather than long-distance travel, the Tesla Roadster is capable of short aerial stunts, and the driver won't need any special pilot license.
1,000Pessoas também estão operando
@ChristopherRandles the description makes it sound like it resolves YES if it does not require a pilot's license, contrary to the title?
[...] fly on private land without a licence is not sufficient for a yes.
[pre-arranged public stunts] without any form of pilots licence is not sufficient for a yes..
2 US states allowing its use in public [...] without any form of pilots licence will be sufficient for a yes resolution.
@deagol Ouch yes that was silly of me.
I have changed the question title.
If anyone is adversely affected let me know.
@ChurlishGambit they said car could refill copvs itself. Yeah I am somewhat dubious of this.
>"cause horrendous damage to the vehicle"
Well the demo car didn't look damaged much. More concerning might be another car hitting it and rupturing COPVs. That might make it difficult to legally put it on public roads regardless of pilots licence.
@ChristopherRandles
>Well the demo car didn't look damaged much
Yeah the damage I'm talking about would be the frame, wheels, everything you can't see under the big shell they put on the toy. & the demo, very purposely, didn't have the car take off with the gas, only land. The force you'd need to get the car air-borne would require quite a lot of gas. & the gas is nitrogen...how is the car going to re-fill that?
>The Rocket version then adds another 400-litre tank in place of the passenger seat and six more thrusters - one in each corner and two at the sides
Yeah, no passenger seat, huge tank sitting next to the driver, this is not going to the consumer market, ever.
The FLYING Tesla Roadster explained by the man who engineered it
@ChurlishGambit "the demo, very purposely, didn't have the car take off with the gas, only land."
So what caused the launch here?
Elon Musk (@elonmusk) on X
@ChristopherRandles Clearly not a real car that could ever possibly go into production nor be on the street Eoin Higgins (@EoinHiggins_) on X
@ChurlishGambit Elon Musk (@elonmusk) on X
Going forward, all advertising on 𝕏 will be subject to a reasonable esthetic standard. Advertisers who post ads that are ugly, shrill, strident or overstate claims about their product will be barred from advertising.
Wonder what happens if someone tries reporting Tesla to X?
Maybe they didn't make any claims that it would be road legal so they are not overstating claims about their product? Power in the hands of the people who rule on such things?
Toy? Well perhaps a very expensive one if it is never road legal anywhere? I can't imagine it being cheap or getting sufficient customers to make it worth the development effort, but who knows, maybe Elon knows enough billionaires?
@ChristopherRandles Look at that. How could that ever be road-legal? How could it ever pass any kind of inspection? How could something with a compressed gas tank in place of a passenger seat, ever be considered road legal? Pull your head out of the cult bag for one second. N/A the question now & save yourself time.
@ChurlishGambit It could become available but not be road legal so only usable on private tracks which would likely resolve no as no public aerial use without pilot licence possible. That is a different outcome to a N/A. A yes from a drivers licence covering aerial stunts may seem unlikely to you, if so bet it down a bit.
@ChristopherRandles "If it seems clear there will be no deliveries with features that allow aerial stunts then this question will be N/A'd."
It's not legal to sell a car that can't pass inspection, except as use for parts or as "non-operational." They can't sell this thing in a way where someone can drive it. They certainly can't manufacture it & sell it as a product.
@ChurlishGambit I believe there are non road legal cars that can only be used on private tracks.
Non-road-legal track cars are purpose-built vehicles designed exclusively for use on private circuits. They do not need to follow standard road regulations, emissions laws, or specific racing series rulebooks.
Are you saying such cars cannot be sold?
@ChristopherRandles Not sold like any company normally sells cars, no. You can transfer them between private buyers—but they still have to pass certain inspections. In California, for example, any car you sell that isn't meant for the junkyard, has to pass a smog test—even if you're not driving it on public roads. Probably wouldn't be a problem for this car, but a variety of inspections are a requirement for any car.
You could try to register this as planned non-operational, but the tons of explosive canisters make that pretty iffy, especially since such a sale would attract a huge amount of media attention. & in CA, at least, PNO means you can't even tow it on public roads. You'd have to get it delivered to the private garage track & store it there where you drive it...or just hope the DMV or CHP never finds out that you're moving it around.
This would be a crazy headache for Tesla to get involved in beyond selling, at most, the demo car, which again, is almost certainly not legal anywhere since it appears to be a plastic toy frame with a shell on it, full of gas canisters.
@ChurlishGambit Yeah right, just like it is totally impossible for car manufacturers like Ferrari, McLaren, Aston Martin to sell cars like Ferrari FXX-K, McLaren P1 GTR, Aston Martin Vulcan and so on.
Oh no, can't tow it 😭 🤣 ... and obviously a transporter or just a specially adapted trailer that can be towed is just too impractical or expensive?
@ChristopherRandles Yeah, you may have noticed, those are not typical car companies selling typical cars.
So what you're positing is, Tesla will suddenly develop a luxury high-end car manufacture & delivery pipeline, for a car with features never approved in a car before, & deal with all the legal issues that would come with selling a car like this, a car which does not yet actually exist beyond a demo model that is clearly not constructed like a real car? You think that's very likely?