I couldn't think of a good title for this thread. But I noticed something the other day (coming later), that made me think about Tesla's choices about aspects of the cars' user interfaces. In some cases they are not afraid of changing the status quo: having regeneration on the go pedal, rather than the brakes, for example. I think this was the correct choice, although on the Model S there's a setting for "low regen" that seems to be partial backoff from this decision. Then there's creep, which seems to be in the Roadster because people are familiar with automatics, which then wasn't in the early deliveries of the Model S, but now there's an option. (I have decided that I prefer to leave the creep off in the Big Gay Car, but that's not what this thread is about.) The 17" display, and relying to some extent on 3G coverage, are clearly departures from normal car industry practice. Another example is in the Model S, not needing to start or stop the non-existent engine. I think that's pretty daring but I love it. These are all big things, but then I noticed something. Look at the first shot of the instrument cluster in REAL interior shots . (Thanks to AnOutsider for the original shot.) . Now there appears to be a sort of chrome ring around the central dial area, indicated by the reflection highlights. I think it's fascinating that the open car hatch overlaps it... this is great. This just makes it look nicer, and evokes memories of nice instrument clusters. But now look at the *inside* of that ring. There are bright areas at 4 o'clock, 9ish and 11:30 positions. These emulate the places where there are LEDs or light pipes or bulbs or whatever to light the instrument! I can't convince myself whether this looks better than perfect lighting, or not? But why go to some admittedly small amount of trouble to emulate something that was less than perfect in the old way of doing things? What do others think, about the big subject (of departing from normal practice), or the small subject?