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."
Don't get me wrong, the numbers are quite impressive - especially the following passage from TFA:
However, at a price point of $80 - 100K, it's going to remain a playtoy for people with money, not become the OMG super-car replacement for mom's $30K Volvo.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
In a head-on collision with another vehicle, yes weight makes a big difference. However you seem to think that headons are the only type of accidents that exist. into. But actually true headons are quite rare and make up a small percentage of accidents. (which is why NHTSA started testing offset headons and side impacts and so on because they're much more common).
Anyways there are accidents where weight hurts you rather than help you. Would you rather crash into the side of a mountain at 60mph in a M-1 Abrams tank, Humvee, or a Tesla S? How about a rollover?
I would be wary of the NHTSA front crash test ratings for the Tesla. The NHTSA front crash test is a full frontal crash into a wall at 35, while the IIHS does a more real world scenario of 25% and 40% of the bumper hitting a wall at 40mph. 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. Unfortunately the IIHS crash test ratings have not been released yet but I can't imagine them doing as well, in the 40% test the Tesla will have lost 60% of it crumple zone while typical combustion engines will lost a little over 50%, in the 25% test Tesla will lose 75% and the combustion engine is still at a little over 50%.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
How is this any different than other Rear engine design vehicles?
During one of the presidential debates, Mitt Romney named Tesla a failure, and claimed that the loan given to Tesla by the DOE was a waste of taxpayer money. This drove the stock down to $25 per share. I wish I'd bought then, because that stock is now around $140 per share, and climbing.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
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.
And $50k would put it at the meat of the pack of cars from all but the discount lines. $50k isn't a lot of money for a car in 2013.
I don't think having a large crumple zone is bad (it's great, actually), but if you use a large percentage of it during a relatively low speed crash so there is no large deceleration detected (aka: gaming the test), then when you have a real crash at a higher speed then the occupants of the vehicle will experience a large sudden deceleration when they run out of crumple zone (aka: they're screwed). It seems that the Tesla has a longer crumple zone than conventional cars, but since most conventional cars are designed to have the engine drop down during a frontal collision, potentially freeing up more distance for crumpling, I'm not sure if it's as much longer as the gp is assuming. I don't think the gp's claim about the results being 'artificially high' are correct. They may or may not correlate with the results of other types of tests.
While the gp has an excellent point about the offset testing, I don't know if his theory about loss of crumple zone is accurate. He seems to assume that the Tesla structural members are evenly distributed across the width of the car, almost in a continuum, rather than concentrated along the sides as in a conventional car. I doubt this is the case, but I am interested in seeing the IIHS testing.