Slashdot Mirror
NHTSA Gives the Model S Best Safety Rating of Any Car In History
cartechboy writes "Even crashing into a wall is good news nowadays for Tesla Motors. Independent testing by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has awarded the company a 5-star safety rating, not just overall, but in every subcategory. While its five-star score across the board has been attained by other vehicles (around one percent of all cars tested are capable of such a score) its ratings in individual categories are higher than any other vehicle, including larger SUVs and minivans. What's really interesting is that part of the safety rating may be because the car is electric."
Do you have any evidence whatsoever that the score is undeserved?
In this case being electric helped with not having to turn off the ignition to prevent fire, have more flexibility in the positioning of elements so that more protection is added for the passenger and having so low a center of mass that they had to design a special test in order to make the car rollover since it would not do it in the normal one. Also, using spaceworthy components helped, I guess...
It is when you don't want the roof collapsing and crushing your skull in. The roof is not an area you want to be a crumple zone.
Yes it is a top end luxury vehicle, and it is also the best in its class, for a lower cost than comparable vehicles. It is also green.
It just isn't a cheap family sedan. We are still at least 5 to 10 years from an affordable all electric inexpensive family car.
The Model S is a really heavy car, actually, almost the weight of the Ford F-150. Only a Hummer or another such extremely rare car weights significantly more. I think that speaks more for how dangerous Hummers are on the roads than how "unsafe" the Model S is. Regardless, though, the Model S is safer than any other car in its category, which is the metric that actually matters. If you're shopping for a sedan, you don't give a shit if a semi is going to give you better survival rates in a collision.
Also, don't expect safety in any vehicle above 60mph. Drive safely instead of relying on technical means to buffer a crash.
It's a great car, but Iteration 2 is more like $80,000, and iteration 3 (SUV) will be comparable to a comparable Model S in price according to the web site. A $50k car is possible, but $30k is unlikely for quite a while.
You invent a cheaper rechargeable battery that matches LiIon on energy density, and congratulations, you've reduced the price of a model S.
If the battery was free, it would still cost twice what I paid for a decent car. This is a top end luxury vehicle, not a green vehicle.
And if were built to the same standards as your decent car, it wouldn't have received the 5 star safety rating. Everything is a tradeoff.
You say that as if the engine fan would keep working, spark plugs can keep firing, the engine doesn't flood(through, say, the tailpipe, or oil system), or a ton of other basic risks. All an electric motor needs to keep working is insulation to prevent shorts. Which it SHOULD have anyways.
I'm no car safety engineer, but I suspect that's nonsense. If I understand modern car cabin safety engineering correctly, the whole point is to make the cabin itself very rigid, but it is surrounded by energy-absorbing crumple zones outside of it to absorb impacts. That's accomplished by having the front, end, and sides of the cars deformable. By contrast it's not exactly normal for roofs (or for that matter, the bottom of a car) to be subjected to head-on collisions. Typically roofs need to support the weight of a car if it flips over, and in that case roof deformation is *not* desirable because any reduction in the size of the cabin would lead to compression of the passengers.
And are you of the opinion that improvements in safety haven't always come in on the high end first and then trickle down?
Airbags. ABS. That 3rd eye brake-light. Tire pressure sensors. Probably even more -- all of these things appeared first in higher-end cars and then made their way down to the rest of the models.
If anything, I expect a car at that price point to have more engineering and safety features in it. You don't just start out putting everything into the cheapest cars on the market.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Without a large motor in the way Tesla is able to use the whole front compartment as a crumple zone as opposed to most combustion vehicles that primary use the sides as a crumple zone. While I don't think the ratings were manipulated they are artificially high because the Tesla design is able to game the system.
Explain to me exactly how having an enormous crumple zone in front of the driver is somehow a bad thing. Would you rather have an engine pushed into your lap from a frontal collision? Their is no evidence I've seen that their ratings are "artificially high". The results are what they are.
Weight has nothing to do with it. Realize that a hard ridged vehicle, if not designed properly, would transfer all the energy to the passenger which would kill you due to internal injuries. Even a light car with the proper design of crumple zones can be safer than a large heavy vehicle.
Don't start quoting physics when you clearly don't understand how car frame design works.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
Um, who cares....it's not gaming the system if it in FACT keeps the passengers safer.
Its not supposed to be in the same galaxy as a family sedan. Its supposed to be in the same galaxy as the other $80k-$100k high end luxury performance cars, and it is much "greener" than those.
The majority of rear engine cars and all mid engine cars are not family sedans where crash test ratings are the selling point.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
im not sure i would call taking advantage of engine placement choice "gaming the system". that makes it sound like cheating, which it isnt. its simply smart engineering.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
While I don't think the ratings were manipulated they are artificially high because the Tesla design is able to game the system.
Designing the car with safety in mind is not "gaming the system". The ratings are not "artificially high", they are "actually high". Obviously safety was a major design concern for Tesla, and this is the result. There is nothing artificial nor "cheating" about it. They specifically designed the car with a huge front crumple zone.
Saying that Tesla's ratings are artificially high is about the same as saying a combustion engine car has artificially low ratings because of a huge engine block in the front that does not crumple. The ratings are not artificial, they are what they are because of how the car is designed.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
also your numbers seem somewhat made up.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
#1 & #2 include a lot of people. #3 includes nearly everyone else. :p
Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
I wish I'd bought then, because that stock is now around $140 per share, and climbing.
Anyone else wondering how many Romney nabbed?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
You invent a cheaper rechargeable battery that matches LiIon on energy density, and congratulations, you've reduced the price of a model S.
If the battery was free, it would still cost twice what I paid for a decent car. This is a top end luxury vehicle, not a green vehicle.
But this isn't what you would call a "decent car", its a luxury performance electric.
It starts in the same price range as a Cacillac CTS-V Coupe. (67K). Where as Cadillac (perversely) proudly displays the $2600 gas guzzler line item on their website, the Model S lists a $7,500 tax credit.
That you wouldn't consider paying that much for a decent car is not germane. It is still comparable to vehicles in its class. And contrary to your assertion, it is a GREEN vehicle, using the standards of "Green" that are commonly applied to cars.
But there are other models in the pipeline, at cheaper price points. And if the same frame construction is used for these, and they could earn the same safety ratings, it will clearly be a good thing.
They will always cost more than your ricer. But that's hardly the market segment this car is aiming for.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
A lot of stuff actually appears in racing cars first, and trickles down to high-end cars, then down to every day cars. DSG-type transmissions (the so-called 'flappy-paddle gearbox') were an F1 technology first, I believe.
My 6-year-old VW Jetta is more technologically advanced than a Merc from the 90s, but it's BECAUSE someone paid for a Merc in the 90s that I can have a VW that's such a good vehicle.
Good for Tesla. This is how you change an industry.
The Nissan Leaf starts at $28k, The federal government gives you $7500 back and many states have further rebates. Most people will save at least $100/month by not buying gas anymore. There are certainly cheaper cars, but you can get an all-electric car that comfortably seats 4 adults right now for half the price of a Model S. I've owned one for 3 months and I absolutely love it.
This is just like the recent XKCD. Percentages are meaningless without bases. The Tesla will have lost more of its crumple zone - of which it has A LOT MORE TOTAL by your own earlier statement.
Do you really believe that? Let's think about this. If there were black people rich enough to buy big expensive cars... living in a run-down slum apartment... why was it a slum? If these blacks were making lots of money there should have been a gentrification effect just like what's happening today with white people moving into poor areas of some cities and actually pricing out the established "slum" residents.
I mean no offense but your story sounds like a romanticization of what might have really happened.