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."
Five star safety rating across the board. Excellent! Now if only it didn't come with a five star price tag
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
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
E. Musk
:) Volvo and other car makers are shitting their trunks right now...
The Tesla broke the roof testing jig and NHTSA had to raise their rating ceiling - another good day for TSLA
Or you could read the article and see that in the areas considered for the tests, many of the common safety tests wouldn't even work, they couldn't roll the car over with standard techniques, they couldn't crush the passenger compartment with a standard crusher, and they had a HUGE crumple zone.
I wasn't sure if I wanted to mod you as a troll, or reply. Dammit! Now I've responded. When did the government get into the marketing business? When HASN'T the government been in the marketing business?
What I'm afraid is that there will no longer be explosions when a car barely collides in movies [U+2e2e]
[Unless it is a documentary about 'accidents' like Michael Hastings'...]
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
Ridiculous. Because the gov't want to promote electric cars, will we now see artificially high safety ratings on electric cars to promote sales? Since when did the gov't get into the marketing business?
Did you get served the secret version of the articles, the one that revealed that conspiracy? The only mention of electricalness contributing to the safety rating was the speculation that the freedom of layout afforded by not having a conventional engine block allowed them to build more crumple zone into the design.
(As for governments in the marketing business, that's actually a core function: states have been asserting the legitimacy of their power through marketing since that marketing involved alleging the favor of some cryptic figures from the Sumerian pantheon, with various modifications to suit the times and advances in efficiency (the high-water mark probably being 20th century nationalism, before that Ended Badly) over time.)
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...
You'll find out real quick that weight makes a big difference... Assume a Humvee and a Model S collide Head on, both going the same speed.
Because the Humvee has greater mass, the Model S would wind up going backwards, and the Humvee would continue moving forward after the collision.
This means the actual amount of energy that needs to dissipate in the Model S is much higher than the Humvee, because the change in velocity is much higher, and the amount of energy expended in the collision is = 1/2 * mass * (change in velocity) ^ 2
I think to call it the 'safest car ever' is quite a bold lie. Clearly there are safer vehicles out there ( Tanks, Semi-Trucks, even airplanes). These NSHTA safety ratings are done for ludicrously slow speeds as well! Don't expect a lot of safety at 70mph...
http://www.dummies.com/how-to/content/how-to-calculate-velocities-of-two-objects-with-di.html
There's nothing disingenuous here: a car that cannot move most of the time is much safer than one that does!
I kid, I kid. BP, I expect my check by the end of the month.
Or you could read the article and see that in the areas considered for the tests, many of the common safety tests wouldn't even work, they couldn't roll the car over with standard techniques, they couldn't crush the passenger compartment with a standard crusher, and they had a HUGE crumple zone.
Also, for the roof crush test the crushing machine broke before the roof did.
The Tesla Model S is an extremely well-engineered machine. It's expensive, yes, but in most respects it's simply superior to equivalently-priced luxury cars. I'm really looking forward to their next generation, which is intended to be priced more mid-market (probably in the 30s).
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Because the gov't want to promote electric cars, will we now see artificially high safety ratings on electric cars to promote sales?
Wow, cynical much? Maybe, just maybe, the engineers at Tesla actually did a really good job. If the vehicle is subjected to the same tests and scores higher then what possible problem could you have with that? If you have evidence that the government somehow held Tesla to a different standard then by all means please share with the rest of the class. But if you are just being snarky then shut up.
I'd be more interesting to see how it fares in the "submerged in water" test.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Also, for the roof crush test the crushing machine broke before the roof did.
That was my favorite part of the article.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Just find some old Pintos and have every bad guy drive those.
The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
Gasoline engines are well noted for their ability to work underwater.
That is freaking awesome!
When you roll the thing over, you want it to be rigid so that it doesn't bend to intersect with your empty skull.
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.
Because the gov't want to promote electric cars?
I thought the government wanted to feed the oil industry? I am confused oh too many conspiracies.
They are promoting the electric car so I think it is part of the conspiracy so I will get a gas car just to show them, then that will feed into the oil industry conspiracy.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
I am taking that as sarcasm. However it is tough to tell with these posts, you could just be wrong.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Not artificially high? How come North American cars don't have amber turn signals then?
They are amber, you just can't tell because nobody uses them. They just give you a gentle nudge to tell you they are changing lanes.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Also, for the roof crush test the crushing machine broke before the roof did.
That's not a good thing for safety. You need the roof to absorb energy not be rigid.
That would be an excellent point if it were the sides of the vehicle. But we're talking about the roof. There's a reason why there's a roof crush test and not a side crush test, where the sides are tested through impacts instead.
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
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.
Tesla's first product (2008), the Roadster, base price of US$109K.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Roadster
The base Model S (2012) starts at US$69,900 with a 60 kWh battery pack up to US$79,900 with the 85 kWh pack before any government subsidies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_Model_S
Prices for the Model X (2014) have not been announced, but Tesla says it wants to have the price of the BlueStar (2016) at under US$ 40K.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tesla_BlueStar
If you want cheap, but a Corolla. If want quality and innovation, someone has to be willing to bankroll the progress in technology that Tesla is trying to achieve.
Assuming it's sealed. In which case, the electric engine won't even need a snorkel.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
What I'm afraid is that there will no longer be explosions when a car barely collides in movies [U+2e2e]
[Unless it is a documentary about 'accidents' like Michael Hastings'...]
Don't worry, movie producers will rig the cars with Tesla Coils and there will be an impressive array of electrical discharge arcs emanating from the car, incinerating everything in the vicinity.
Wrong question; what you should be asking is, "why spend 100K, when I can buy a car with an almost equivalent safety rating for leas than half that price?
That is, if you're the sort who cares for safety ratings when making purchasing decisions.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Does this mean that the drivers will feel safer in them and therefore drive less carefully as a result?
The cars might be safer, but I bet it still hurts if one hits you
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
I'm fairly certain that a roof that *doesn't* collapse in on the car's occupants during a rollover would be more of a "good thing for safety" than one which did.
How is this any different than other Rear engine design vehicles?
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.
Or you could read the article and see that in the areas considered for the tests, many of the common safety tests wouldn't even work, they couldn't roll the car over with standard techniques, they couldn't crush the passenger compartment with a standard crusher, and they had a HUGE crumple zone.
Also, for the roof crush test the crushing machine broke before the roof did.
The Tesla Model S is an extremely well-engineered machine. It's expensive, yes, but in most respects it's simply superior to equivalently-priced luxury cars. I'm really looking forward to their next generation, which is intended to be priced more mid-market (probably in the 30s).
As the price comes down, I wouldn't expect these testing results to stay the same. The safety far exceeded the ratings by quite a bit and extremely exceeded minimums required. There is a cost to overengineering, which is likely to get trimmed when building down to a price.
More Twoson than Cupertino
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.
I mean realize that the Model S does not have anything in the front so its just a large crumple zone. All other cars have 1 ton of engine block in the front and depending on how severe the accident is, that engine block is going to come into the passenger cabin as some point. I mean I would say that the car is probably as safe on any other side as any other car, but for head on collisions it moves the rating up a notch.
But I mean who buys a car because of its safety rating? I mean there are millions of people driving Toyota's that don't stop when you want them to and they still have high safety ratings so to argue about this is moot.
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.
The batteries aren't sealed because they have to vent heat at a rate greater than you can get through passive cooling.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Because US regulations don't require them while other markets do. The Europeans and Japanese just don't bother to make market-specific taillights, they just follow the Euro regs which also meet US regs.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
Wasn't the next tesla vehicle going to compete against the $50k luxury SUV's?
In this case, this is the "next" vehicle that you heard about. You were either reading an old article, or read an article before the introduction of the model S.
"His name was James Damore."
unless your brain is resting against the roof/ceiling of the car, the energy isn't going to be transferred from the roof to your brain.
which is precisely why you want the roof and its support pillars to be rigid enough that it wont crush your head.
stupid AC.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Just require that all of the wiring be made of conductive thermite. Then, if a wire gets too hot, WHOOSH!! Perfectly adequate fireball, with the added bonus of being impossible to extinguish. Magnesium wiring would do, but it's possible to put a magnesium fire out. One might also make the body out of rocket fuel.
It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
in a rollover situation, where the roof and its pillars are now supporting the weight of the car, unless your brain is resting against the roof/ceiling of the car, the energy isn't going to be transferred from the roof to your brain. which is precisely why you want the roof and its support pillars to be rigid enough that it wont crush your head.
stupid AC.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
sorrly, replied to wrong AC
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Um, who cares....it's not gaming the system if it in FACT keeps the passengers safer.
If the color of turn signals is the main plank of your safety argument, you've failed.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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.
in what way does the roof ever need to absorb energy?? the only time the roof needs to do anything is when the car rolls over, in which case its now supporting the weight of the car.
having even a little bit of give means crushing your empty AC skull.
so no, the roof absolutely does NOT need to absorb any energy.
in fact, if you look, the majority of the passenger compartment is designed to be fairly rigid.
all the crumple zones and energy absorbtion engineering is placed outside the passenger compartment.
stupid AC.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
stupid AC calling the kettle black.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Actually I would expect the Tesla would do better in those "partial overlap" crash tests as well, with no engine block it will be possible to add more cross-bracing to the engine bay which will make the front of the car massively stiffer. I doubt they made the sides of the engine bay any weaker, cars don't have any real excessive structure there (apart from metal wheel wells perhaps). There's been a lot of stink kicked up recently about the "low overlap" crash tests as well so I doubt Tesla would have stepped into the line of fire there.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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
Seems to me that the roll cages welded into racecars around the world are rigid. Last time I checked that includes rollbars on pickup trucks and roll bars in convertibles and the like. In a roll over if you have your seat belt on like I did then you head should not be in contact with the roof for the energy to transfer to your empty skull.
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.
No, when you roll, you want the roof not to crush. As there are merely a couple of inches between the roof and the passengers heads. Skulls and spines do not compress and contract like legs. Nor do they mend like them.
You might want to measure how much of a crumple zone a roof might have. My car has about 2" before it's impacting my head. Sides have 4-6", and then it's impacting my arm.
Or you could keep calling people names. Since you probably aren't old enough to drive a car.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
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
No silly, no....
That is easily handled by the seat and restraining straps.
"You know nothing Jon Coward"
also your numbers seem somewhat made up.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
No idiot, he's right, you're wrong. Cars typically don't take impact on the roof, and there are only a few inches of room to crush before your spine starts to get crushed. Race cars use solid-as-fuck roll cages to keep the roof from absorbing any energy, it seems to work well.
In fact most purpose-built race cars have a space frame that is EXTREMELY rigid with carbon fiber/aluminum honeycomb "crash boxes" stuck to the front and rear bumpers that act as crumple zones.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
passive AIR cooling.
But what about passive water cooling?!!?
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Gasoline engines do not work when submerged. They require high voltage electrical sparks to ignite the fuel. Being submerged robs them of the spark they need to run. You would have to do special waterproofing of all of the engine's electrical works before it can run submerged.
Diesel engines, on the other hand, do not use spark plugs or electrical components (other than for starting the motor), so all you need is a snorkel. Those Humvees and Land-Rovers you see crossing rivers and streams with the snorkels all have diesel engines.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
havent done much 4 wheeling have ye?
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
That at least might be realistic when compared to a half empty 15 gallon gas tank creating a blast the size of a house or two.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Why?
Most of these scores are not based on just the cost. But on the novel design approaches. Elon Musk is building Tesla's like space ships. Using more advanced design techniques. Most automobiles are 30 year old engineering. And you may pay $100,000 for a BMW. But it's really not that much more advanced in construction than a Chevy.
Tesla went and said, let's design from the ground up and use all ideas. And that's why they did things differently. The cheaper vehicles will likely be cheaper because of performance grade of the motors will be gone, less refinement and comforts, and namely, the R&D expenditure will be re-couped.
"And just how strong is the Model S roof, which is secured with aerospace-grade bolts? It broke a testing machine that was pushing down on the roof with the equivalent of the weight of four cars."
Four cars? Pshaw. Forty years ago my Volvo could bench press 6.
http://imgur.com/kmdoVYR
Lame...
Cause a car without gas doesn't move either.
The Model X.
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
Name one besides the 911?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Wrong question; what you should be asking is, "why spend 100K, when I can buy a car with an almost equivalent safety rating for leas than half that price?
You can buy a car with a 5 star safety rating AND which performs like a Tesla for half the money? Where can I find this incredible vehicle?
Nobody buys a car just for the safety rating. Your argument is a strawman.
You would be wrong in expecting that, the Tesla uses its center as a crumple zone if the sides are too stiff in the NHTSA test the car will stop too fast leading to injuries in the crash test dummies and a poor rating. Because of this it is fair to assume that the sides are not as strong as another 5 star crash test recipient with a front combustion engine. If there is only a partial impact the combustion engine still has half its crumple zone while the Tesla will have 25%.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
the 40% test the Tesla will have lost 60% of it crumple zone while typical combustion engines will lost a little over 50%
And the other 50% of the combustion engine is sitting in your lap. Or what's left of your lap. But lower numbers = safety!
You read that wrong Tesla will only be able to use 40% of its crumple zone the other 60% will not be utilized or lost in the 40% test.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
A blast that ignites while the car is still in mid air no less.
Name one besides the 911?
Rear/mid engine cars:
Pontiac Fiero
Porsche Boxster
Acura NSX
Toyota MR2
Smart Fourtwo
Ford GT40
Many different designs and price points.
You know, people like the IIHS, NHTSA, certification groups for all the major motorsports. Who knew rollbars weren't necessary!?
You realize the rollbars are there to prevent the roof from being crushed into the passenger, right? They are there to provide stiffness, so the roof doesn't come crashing on the driver. That's not really backing up the AC.
You want to dissipate the energy with crumpling, but you don't want to crumple into the driver or passengers. That means that at some point it needs to get really rigid. Deform by a certain amount, but never deform beyond a particular point. Considering the NHTSA gave the vehicle 5 stars, I'm pretty sure their machine broke before crushing past the point it's not supposed to.
1968 Volkswagen Beetle :)
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
The actual answer to his question was given in the summary, the Tesla outscored every single car in every single category. Your question only makes sense if you ONLY care about safety ratings when buying a car, which would be just as dumb as ignoring them completely. The REAL question you should be asking is, "If I'm going to buy a $100k car, why would I buy anything but the best?" This is why Tesla is giving BMW/Audi/etc. a run for their money.
Yes for all those roof-first collisions I see every day. Just the other day, a Chevy Volt beetle just jumped of all four wheels and threw itself roof first into oncoming traffic. They say it wasn't a car suicide but then again, it was a Chevy Volt.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
You know, people like the IIHS, NHTSA, certification groups for all the major motorsports. Who knew rollbars weren't necessary!?
You realize the rollbars are there to prevent the roof from being crushed into the passenger, right? They are there to provide stiffness, so the roof doesn't come crashing on the driver.
Which is precisely what the AC said. There's a reason the passenger space in the car is *not* a crumple zone... because you'd crumple into the passengers. Which is why *all* cars are made to resist any intrusion into the cabin, why rollbars are in race cars, and why its something all the testing agencies test, and why its a big deal that they *couldn't* crush the space in the Model S.
I'm assuming in your zeal to post something negative on Slashdot that you misread the original post, and I'm not wasting time pointing this out to someone just trolling ...
I think some of the people here use their skulls as crumple zones. Plenty of empty space in there.
On a car, the roof needs to be sturdy.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
My point which you seemed to miss is that the 5 star rating of the Tesla in the NHTSA rating gives the appearance that it is a super safe car for front collisions but I doubt it will fare as well in the more realistic case of a partial front impact that the IIHS does. It is similar to how hybrids EPA city mileage ratings were considerably off until a new system was used to rate them. The Tesla is very safe for full frontal impacts but that is not a real world scenario so those ratings must be taken with a huge grain of salt.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
The thing is, other cars scored the same 5 star ratings. But Tesla broke the mold (well testing equipment). So not only was it meeting the requirements for 5 stars. It was often exceeding by 4x-5x the score.
They are not saying that the car does not do well in the test, they are saying that the test is a poor representation of a real crash. So you can build a car that is very safe in that particular type of crash and score well in the test, while you would still be more badly hurt in most real crashes than with some cars that do not get as good scores.
The government is trying to push $70k cars on people .... hahahahaha
I think I would love to get on the list to be able to get a Tesla simply because they don't suck.
Unfortunately, pricey fast luxury cars are not on my list of important things to try to buy with my life-force.
But if like you say the state is trying to get one to everyone, I am all for that... hahahahaa
Renault Alpine.
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Gasoline engines do not work when submerged. They require high voltage electrical sparks to ignite the fuel. Being submerged robs them of the spark they need to run. You would have to do special waterproofing of all of the engine's electrical works before it can run submerged.
Growing up as a 'river rat,' partying with crazed rednecks and their beater 4x4s on the river beds has imparted me with the knowledge that what you say here is decidedly not true. Theoretically, you're right, but practical observation defies that theory. Hell, the most I've ever seen anyone do as far as waterproofing was to RTV their distributor shut, and even that was considered overkill.
Diesel engines, on the other hand, do not use spark plugs or electrical components (other than for starting the motor), so all you need is a snorkel. Those Humvees and Land-Rovers you see crossing rivers and streams with the snorkels all have diesel engines.
Bullshit - I've seen far, far more 6-cylinder gasoline Jeeps successfully taking a swim than anything else, save maybe Chenowth dune buggies powered by 50-year-old VW engines.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Exactly. Roofs have to support large forces, not decelerations. Other parts of the car do have to absorb significant decelerations.
I'm assuming in your zeal to post something negative on Slashdot that you misread the original post, and I'm not wasting time pointing this out to someone just trolling ...
I didn't misread it, but I did misinterpret your comment. There were multiple ACs, and I thought you were referring to another one. The person you were replying to wasn't an AC, but he was replying to this AC comment which claimed nothing should be rigid ever. I thought you were supporting him, which made the rollbars comment strange.
So I apologize, but in my defense you didn't make it that clear who you were talking about. I was just following the thread.
And gasoline engines are. /s
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.
... this is why engineers sometimes annoy me.
"It doesn't fit the model, therefore it can't work!"
Well, Skippy, I hate to break it to ya, but gasoline engines very much DO operate underwater, presuming dry airflow to the intake (and from the exhaust) is maintained. Just plug something like "Jeep drives under water" into Youtube for examples.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
> What's really interesting is that part of the safety rating may be because the car is electric.
Yes, but probably not in the way you mean.
Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
Gasoline engines do not work when submerged. They require high voltage electrical sparks to ignite the fuel. Being submerged robs them of the spark they need to run. You would have to do special waterproofing of all of the engine's electrical works before it can run submerged.
If only we had the technology to do such waterproofing and run high voltage electrical wires underwater...
Oh wait, we do. Which means it is possible to run a gasoline engine submerged then, doesn't it?
It's just that you can't grab any engine from a standard passenger car as it was built from the factory and do it.
While I don't think the ratings were manipulated they are artificially high because the Tesla design is able to game the system.
Gaming the system by making the car safer? Next you will tell me they have a "unfair advantage" because it doesn't use gas.
More anti-Tesla vitriol here.
"I don't know that atheists should be considered citizens, nor should they be considered patriots." George HW Bush
Well some of the tests gave the S an advantage but affect both gasoline and electric regardless: roll-over and roof crush. In the future, the NHTSA may apply electric specific tests but not yet.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
I'm assuming in your zeal to post something negative on Slashdot that you misread the original post, and I'm not wasting time pointing this out to someone just trolling ...
I didn't misread it, but I did misinterpret your comment. There were multiple ACs, and I thought you were referring to another one. The person you were replying to wasn't an AC, but he was replying to this AC comment which claimed nothing should be rigid ever. I thought you were supporting him, which made the rollbars comment strange.
So I apologize, but in my defense you didn't make it that clear who you were talking about. I was just following the thread.
I didn't even notice the dimwit who replied as also an AC.
The Tesla "gamed" the system by having a large crumple zone? That sounds like they gamed the system by making the car safer. Isn't that the point?
Learn to love Alaska
I don't believe that it is.
Not if they suddenly hit cold water and crack the engine block.
Why would the engine fan have to keep running? It would be submerged in a giant heatsink.
What has age got to do with anything? Substitute any other social group into that sentence and look at how terrible it becomes -- "not white enough to drive a car". Belittling a group based on the circumstances of their birth is wrong no matter which circumstance you choose.
The Tesla is very safe for full frontal impacts but that is not a real world scenario so those ratings must be taken with a huge grain of salt.
It is a good gauge that correlates well to real world performance. You have no reason to doubt the generalizable of the results. Much like most side-impacts into poles aren't with the car stationary and the pole moving at an exact angle into the side of the car. What if the angle is less or more? Carnage could result. Given the apparent structural strength of the sides (from the side impact tests), and the front performance, why wouldn't one expect the offset crash to perform better, not worse, given your assertion that the side impact test performance increases with the level of strength in the sides?
Given the results and your own logic, I come to the opposite conclusion. It will do *better* in the offset tests than reflected in the full-frontal test. Though I think it will, in practice, only do as well as it did in the frontal, as your logic is flawed.
Learn to love Alaska
My point which you seemed to miss is that the 5 star rating of the Tesla in the NHTSA rating gives the appearance that it is a super safe car for front collisions but I doubt it will fare as well in the more realistic case of a partial front impact that the IIHS does.
And why do you doubt that? What do you know that I don't? Did Tesla completely leave out the side panel impact zones or something? It sounds like you have some insight into specifically how they designed the car.
The Tesla is very safe for full frontal impacts but that is not a real world scenario
How is someone driving head-on into something else not a real world scenario? You're saying that never happens?
"Our two-party system is like a bowl of shit looking at itself in a mirror." - Lewis Black
The problem with your theory is that they designed the tests to reflect real-world crashes.
Learn to love Alaska
Are _any_ of those still made?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Because kids call others names. It's an immaturity thing. So you can't substitute 'any other social group'.
Not sure how you can't see that.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
And then auctions it for charity, and buys another one.
I seem to remember he always gets a great novelty plate like "Thrifty" or something.
My mom says I'm cool.
Depends on the country you are in. You can't get the diesel engined Hyluxes for example in the United States until they are at least 25 years old.
There is a good reason the Hylux is one of the premiere off road vehicles, and most of those are diesel. (See also Top Gear episode on the Hylux for amusement).
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
thats not what the ac has been saying. someones said the roof shouldnt give, and AC should it *should* ("nothing, nothing should ever be rigid on a car") which is patently wrong. and you speaking of "I'm assuming in your zeal to post something negative on Slashdot that you misread the original post, and I'm not wasting time pointing this out to someone just trolling ..." is just irony, delicious irony.
the passenger compartment is NOT a crumple zone or energy absorber. the passenger compartment is very very rigid/strong. all the crumple zones are -outside- the passenger compartment. the compartment itself cannot experience any deformation (ideally) because that leads to deformation of people's bodies...usually a Very Bad Thing. speaking specifically of the roof (which the ac was) the roof cannot "aborb" anything; and its not designed to. its designed to suport the weight of the car, plus some, and transfer it to the roll bars/pillars and not crush skulls.
the AC was wrong.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
I read about those back in the year of the flood. _Bad_ imitation 911..
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Bullshit. NO one buys electric cars because they uniformly suck and this is clearly just the fucking government trying to push them on us. But why am I arguing with dumbass statists on Slashdot AGAIN?
I see them on a near-daily basis. When you say "NO one" what you really mean is only people who can afford to spend $70K on a car. Granted that's not a lot of people, but in order for costs to be driven down we need those early adopters with deep pockets.
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
You never need the roof to absorb energy. The roof should be 100% rigid. You will (based on statistics) *never* have an initial impact on the roof. You may "roll" onto it, but it's never the initial impact point. So you want the roof to remain rigid to allow safe extraction of the occupants. The other surfaces are there to absorb the initial impact.
Look at race cars where surviving 200+ mph crashes is possible. The passenger cage is 100% rigid. The front and back (and what little of the sides extends from the car) are absorbent, but the cage is rigid. That's the safe design. Yours is not.
Learn to love Alaska
If they gamed the system, passengers will be safer in accidents similar to the test, but potentially less safe in other accidents.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I'm a radical libertarian and I would happily buy an electric car under the right circumstances. Having the biggest carbon footprint isn't some sort of twisted measure of how free you are.
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
ya now im confused whos replying to what now.
There was "When you roll the thing over, you want it to be rigid so that it doesn't bend to intersect with your empty skull."
To which AC said: "Wrong. Nothing should ever be rigid on a car ever. Otherwise the full force of the impact get transferred to your brain."
And when speaking of the roof of the car, the AC is wrong.
The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
Or was it the right AC? That's the problem with ACs, you never really know.
I think 50% of ACs post stupid questions, and then reply to themselves with even stupider answers just to watch others argue about which stupid is stupider.
Learn to love Alaska
No, it never needs to absorb energy. If it did, as the other AC (or the same one, if you are arguing with yourself) said, they'd do roof impact tests. They don't because the roof never receives an impact, even in a rollover, that requires any absorption.
Learn to love Alaska
He probably drives an old Beetle. :-)
Space game using normal deck of cards: http://BattleCards.org
. . . for the car to go up in a fireball. Especially if you're chasing James Bond at the time. No gasoline == no fireball. So sad.
Yep, lots of guys put snorkel air intakes on their jeeps and go through rivers, without a PCV system the only other place for water to enter a running engine is through the gas cap which can't be water/air tight because you'd cause a vacuum that your fuel pump could never pull against.
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
Heh, as silly as that is, there are worse examples of Hollywood Explosives....
Standard fragmentation hand grenades demolishing entire buildings in a huge fireball and smoke plume...
And the inverse.... 150mm artillery shell slams into the ground near the protagonist, there's a smoke puff, and the protagonist just brushes off a mild sprinkling of dust, then walks away, with full hearing, vision etc...
>>>>> with no engine block it will be possible to add more cross-bracing to the engine bay
:-)
What engine bay?
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.
You know it's a violation of law to remove your bumper dynamite and zero G sensor?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
...or "frunk" if you will :-P
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
The actual answer to his question was given in the summary, the Tesla outscored every single car in every single category. Your question only makes sense if you ONLY care about safety ratings when buying a car, which would be just as dumb as ignoring them completely.
Yea I thought that was pretty clear when I said it. Guess I should have been meaner in my choice of words.
The REAL question you should be asking is, "If I'm going to buy a $100k car, why would I buy anything but the best?" This is why Tesla is giving BMW/Audi/etc. a run for their money.
"Best" is subjective. To me, the "best" luxury performance car doesn't have more than 2 seats, nor does it take 8 hours to fill the tank from empty.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Once the water hits the fuse panel, there are usually issues. You can seal an engine to work underwater, but in practice they are not, except for after-market modified trucks, which doesn't seem sporting to compare a sedan against a specially modified truck.
Learn to love Alaska
Pontiac Fiero - NO
Porsche Boxster (and related Cayman) -YES
Acura NSX--2005 and again in 2015
Toyota MR2--NO
Smart Fourtwo-YES
Ford GT40--NO
The Italian supercars are rear engine, Audi R8 are current production.
If the government doesn't want to promote IC engines, why are we spending more than a trillion dollars a year securing oil fields on the other side of the planet?
Learn to love Alaska
An empty tank will explode better than a full one. Fuel line leaks to turn to fire. Given 5-10 minutes to heat a nearly empty fuel tank, and an explosion does happen, well burst of flames that looks explosion-like, the tanks are deliberately designed to a narrow range of strength to not break in a crash, but to break before explosive pressures are reached. They aren't given pressure relief valves because those are proven to not work for a number of scenarios (most disaster show tank explosions are of tanks with pressure relief, and explode anyway), so the cost and benefits of them on every fuel tank make it useless (spending the same money on rural helicopters would save more lives for the same $$$). A full fuel tank will burn longer, but an empty one has a good mix of vapor and O2.
Learn to love Alaska
God damn I wish Toyota would put the Hylux in the United States. If it's durable and adaptable enough for Tutsi rebels in Africa, I fucking want one. Asymmetrical warfare is about the most strenuous stress-test there is.
Fine, the car's battery/alternator would short, destroying the wiring. Just like an electric.
so they'll need a snorkel? Sounds doable.
These were impact tests....FYI. And if the Model S survived them intact, it's no different than a gas engine vehicle doing so. Yes it is part of the tests. If either the gas or batteries go BOOM!!!! I believe it's a failure.
And you may pay $100,000 for a BMW. But it's really not that much more advanced in construction than a Chevy.
Higher tech, maybe not quite so much. Higher quality, definitely.
The Chevy Volt had to re-address some design issues due to these tests. Because they realized a fluid leak caused a short that ignited a vehicle after impact tests.
Earlier this year, there was a bad accident where a Tesla Model S hit a 90 Honda Accord head-on: Tesla vs Honda Head-on Collision. The two people in the Accord were killed immediately. The Accord was a crumpled mess, as you can see from the photo in the article. The Tesla driver had only minor injuries. He was able to simply open his door and exit the vehicle. The accident itself is a terrible tragedy, but seeing a real-world example helps you to see just how safe the vehicle is.
I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
The truth is, that they feel in the next decade, that technology advancements will bring them to a 600 mile range. Which is fair enough for most anyone. And that it would have been a distraction to focus on a hybrid.
Though I do think the Chevy Volt 2.0 should have a diesel option.
I'd be more interesting to see how it fares in the "submerged in water" test.
I'm not sure if the batteries require an air source, as a gasoline engine would, but it seems possible that the vehicle would work underwater. Unlike what you might think, electric components in a regular car don't instantly stop working underwater. In fact, power windows and headlights will probably still work underwater for awhile.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Actually, my Nissan has red blinkers.
www.wavefront-av.com
There have been multiple real-world frontal offset crashes with the Tesla Model S already. Looking those up and photos from them show much the same results as with the other crash tests did. Which is to say, the car performed flawlessly and the occupants walked away unharmed. I suspect when IIHS results are performed it will score equally as well.
This is what ALL auto makers do at present. I wager Tesla has done it much less so.
I'd be curious about the mid-frontal collision compared to most any other car. But the point of the comment is mostly that no engine was gaming. But that's nto gaming if the fact makes the vehicle safer in reality and not just tests.
Tesla uses the middle of the car as a crumple zone, if its side panels were as stiff as an IC car it would stop too fast causing injuries in crash test dummies in the NHTSA test. This is not the case the Tesla crumpled the same amount as the Kia Optima and was rated the same, since the Kia can not have crumple zones where the engine is it's safe to assume its sides handle more of the impact then the Tesla. In a partial test the Optima is not losing as much of the crumple zone and structure as the Tesla.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
His theory is that because of no engine the energy absorbing elements in the front end will be more spread out and while that's good for a full-front test, there will be less of them for a partial-front impact. He neglects the possibility that the improvement in full-front results is from simply adding more energy absorbing elements (like the floor, which most cars don't have under the engine). Until there's corroboration from either design docs or test results, I'm not worrying about it.
...I laughed at "compression of the passengers".
My point which you seemed to miss is that the 5 star rating of the Tesla in the NHTSA rating gives the appearance that it is a super safe car for front collisions but I doubt it will fare as well in the more realistic case of a partial front impact that the IIHS does.
And why do you doubt that? What do you know that I don't? Did Tesla completely leave out the side panel impact zones or something? It sounds like you have some insight into specifically how they designed the car.
In a NHTSA test Tesla uses the whole front end to stop the car safely if the sides were as rigid as an IC car it would stop too fast causing injuries to the crash test dummies. The sides of the IC car absorb the collision because the engine is in the middle and it cannot absorb it. When Tesla gets into a partial head on collision it won't have the whole center area too absorb energy, IC cars are built not to rely on the center so partial tests have less variance from full frontal impacts because they are still using the same structure to stop the car.
The Tesla is very safe for full frontal impacts but that is not a real world scenario
How is someone driving head-on into something else not a real world scenario? You're saying that never happens?
Head on accidents are rarely ever like the NHTSA test where the full front of the car is taking the impact, the vast majority are partial impacts, IIHS tests a 40% and a 25% which means 40% of the front bumper hit the wall and 25% of the front bumper hit the wall.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Gas tank breather kit, runs a breather line to the snorkel level.
I guess it's impossible to insulate those, right?
Every 4x4 has a fording depth. Ones not designed to get the engine soaked have a shallow one, those with protection have deeper ones. Some you just have to add a snorkel kit and the entire thing can run underwater, as in the problem is now the driver getting air, not the engine.
Those are mid engine. Engine is in front of the transmission.
Many of the others are Transverse mid. Engine besides the transmission.
True rear engine cars are pretty rare. VW bugs, original Fiat 500/600/850s, Porsche 911 (and knockoffs like the Alpine mentioned above).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I think you are wrong. I've seen others give reasons, and you ignored them, so I'll not bother reasoning with the unreasonable. You are making the invalid assumption that there is no cross-bracing at all. I just want to make sure to point out to all the other irrational haters that your "facts" aren't. You are just presenting unfounded (And incorrect) opinion as fact.
Learn to love Alaska
I'm all for safer cars, but safety ratings are measuring the wrong things. Moms love SUVs because they are perceived as safer for the occupants. Never mind that they are more dangerous for everyone else. For a pedestrian, SUVs are one of the most dangerous! Car safety needs to consider how dangerous it is for other people.
Cars kill twice as many pedestrians as drivers or passengers (World Bank) (That's worldwide--in USA, pedestrians are closer to 14% of deaths because everybody drives and nobody walks in US). Of course, nobody wants to buy a car that's safer for other people.
Maybe the Model S is safe, maybe not. Who knows?
I was talking space inside the car cabin. The doors are 4-6" from my arms. The roof is 2" from my head.
You'd have to make significantly thicker roofs to make a good crumple zone. Every car would have to look like it's wearing a top hat.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
You mean like non-nuke submarines... which use electric while underwater and disel whie on the surface where they can get access to an air supply? Sure it's different batteries (which don't explode when exposed to water...) but your argument doesn't exactly hold a lot of weight. Now I would like to see a flood test where they run it into a river and see if it explodes.
I don't think 600 mile range will ever be standard. Only because the alternative is that you could make a car with a 300 mile range and make it much cheaper (half the battery size). Already, I think you're seeing the range issue on Tesla start to go away, as people realize how infrequently they actually need their car to go more than 200 miles on a "tank". The Leaf, with its much smaller range, still has a marketing issue, but it wouldn't surprise me to see 200-300 miles settle down as the standard range for electric cars (perhaps with bigger options available as upgrades and/or temporary swaps).
...the ratings were manipulated they are artificially high...
Enough with the ad hominem. There is no link to synthetics causing manipulative behavior. Naturally occurring drugs aren't better than synthetics: The "all natural" drugs have less predictable side effects because they're more complex chemically. So, if they're concerned with consistent results, which of course the NHTSA is, then it's logical they'd prefer artificial highs.
The actual answer to his question was given in the summary, the Tesla outscored every single car in every single category. Your question only makes sense if you ONLY care about safety ratings when buying a car, which would be just as dumb as ignoring them completely.
Yea I thought that was pretty clear when I said it. Guess I should have been meaner in my choice of words.
Sorry if I offended you with my caps, being too lazy to use emphasis. The fact that they mention the Model S in the same sentence as such lesser cars is of course an affront. But the wording of your post clearly implies that the only reason to pay more than $50k for any car would be to get a higher crash test rating, which struck me as silly. For one, that extra cash gets you from the S60's 6.4 second time to the Model S's seat-plastering 3.9 seconds. Add in the zero-lag, zero-noise, zero-maintenance, zero-emission power plant, and Tesla's unique exterior and interior design, and you begin to approach the sum of their differences.
"Best" is subjective. To me, the "best" luxury performance car doesn't have more than 2 seats,
..then you're clearly not in the market for a luxury performance sedan, which I thought was implied by the fact that we were talking about the Model S at all. But thank you for making yourself clear this time.
nor does it take 8 hours to fill the tank from empty.
...which is only true if you drive on routes without a Tesla supercharger, something that will become more difficult in the next 6-18 months. The rest of the time, you plug it in when you get home and it's full by the time you leave in the morning--assuming you actually drive 250 miles a day. An average American commute would only take an hour to recover from.
You're free to think what you like, I just hope that one day you actually get to drive a Tesla vehicle of some kind and have those prejudices shattered. Now that I drive electric (even in my poor-man's Nissan Leaf), it's hard for me not to lump all gas cars together, from Corollas to Cameros--they're hideously noisy, smelly, expensive to operate, and simply inelegant by comparison.
Name one besides the 911?
Rear/mid engine cars:
Pontiac Fiero Porsche Boxster Acura NSX Toyota MR2 Smart Fourtwo Ford GT40
Many different designs and price points.
Interesting isn't it? How similar "glueball" sounds to "Google", that is.
OK, glueball now, what's the air-speed velocity of an unladen Firebird?
Please forgive me; The scientist in me will not be denied testing of his hypotheses.
But the wording of your post clearly implies that the only reason to pay more than $50k for any car would be to get a higher crash test rating,
Only if the individual fits the caveat: " ...if you're the sort who cares for safety ratings when making purchasing decisions."
I never stated, nor implied anything in such general terms as you are presuming.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Don't know about you, but given that most mid and rear engine vehicles are considered sports cars, I'd be a heck of a lot more interested in it's frontal crash rating, even over 'the family sedan'.
I don't read AC A human right
If there is only a partial impact the combustion engine still has half its crumple zone while the Tesla will have 25%.
Why do we care if the remaining crumple zone is 50% or 25%? The issue that matters is what forces hit the occupants of the vehicle. I could engineer a 'crumple zone' that uses 1% of it's space in a 40mph impact, it'd just cream the occupants. 100% is also bad, because that marks intrusion into the cabin. A Tesla has massive space for crumple zones because it doesn't need to keep the engine out of the passenger's laps. I also wonder if that 50% is the crumple area, or the whole front of the car? Because if it's the latter much over 50% and the engine might be intruding into the cabin, while at 25% remaining the Tesla still has 15% more to go before intrusion.
I'd like to see the sources on the percentages, by the way. I'd like to see precisely what they're measuring.
I don't read AC A human right
I see them on a near-daily basis. When you say "NO one" what you really mean is only people who can afford to spend $70K on a car. Granted that's not a lot of people, but in order for costs to be driven down we need those early adopters with deep pockets.
I consider the fact that I spend like $100 in gas money every few weeks. If I was a heavier driver, $100/week, and could charge for free at work or something, that's $5k/year saved. 5 years and I'd be break even with a $45k car, which is a lot more in reach for many people. Call me back when it's equivalent to a $30k car.
That's without figuring stuff like savings on oil changes.
I don't read AC A human right
It doesn't look like it will fill the niche of either an SUV or a minivan from those pictures. It just looks like a hatchback. Not useful for, say, soccer moms, I'd guess.
SIGSEGV caught, terminating
wait... not that kind of sig.
I am eager to see what Top Gear more particularly Clarkson has to say about this car.
Tesla has a lot of cross bracing in the front that normally would not be possible in a front engine car. There's a massive pillar that goes between the top of the front suspension. Since the battery pack is under the entire passenger compartment and has steel plates it helps further strengthen the passenger compartment.
The front bumper is connected to two hexagonal extruded aluminum bars designed to absorb the impact.
I have seen some pictures of Teslas that have been in some very bad accidents. In one, a BMW M5 ran a stop sign at 60MPH and hit the front quarter panel of the Tesla. All occupants were OK though.
Pictures: http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/17190-Major-accident-for-me-tonight-(5-26)-(New-P85-arrives-7-8)?p=348987&viewfull=1#post348987
Tesla head-on with a Honda Accord: (sadly the accord occupants did not survive) http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/model-s-safe
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
Fine, the car's battery/alternator would short, destroying the wiring. Just like an electric.
There's something called dielectric gel that works quite well on the marine battery's terminals to waterproof the connections (with some rubber covers). I suspect they work the same way with other battery-utilizing vehicles.
While the pictures may not show it, I saw a Model X in person at the Tesla factory. It is nearly the size of an Expedition so I think it will fill the role nicely as either since it can comfortably seat 7 adults with extra storage under the frunk.
This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
You would be wrong in expecting that, the Tesla uses its center as a crumple zone if the sides are too stiff in the NHTSA test the car will stop too fast leading to injuries in the crash test dummies and a poor rating. Because of this it is fair to assume that the sides are not as strong as another 5 star crash test recipient with a front combustion engine. If there is only a partial impact the combustion engine still has half its crumple zone while the Tesla will have 25%.
You are assuming that the Tesla and other cars both start with the same "amount" of crumple zone. But if the Tesla actually has twice the amount of crumple zone, then having 25% of it left would be exactly the same as 50% of the normal car's. Taking the engine out gives the Tesla extra margin, it doesn't just move the same amount of margin around.
Wow, a 7 digit ID - let that be a lesson in the perils of procrastination.
Mythbusters showed electric windows would still work for 30-40 minutes after being submerged under water. (They stuck the whole battery/window assembly underwater)
Suborbital [spaceflight] is the special olympics of spaceflight. - Rei
I have another question regarding the NHTSA testing and the rating.
In Euro-NCAP, cars are divided into three classes - small, normal and SUV (I forgot the exact names they use, but basically those).
Each class have harder demands to get five stars. Does the Model S fall into an "easier" category in this test?
Ah, but that'll be compensated for with electric arcs that are about as realistic.
Well, I might have a way, but it only works on a semi spherical planet in a vacuum.
Actually Mercedes and Volvo, which have the some of the lowest fatality rates per mile driven do not get perfect scores on their NHTSA or IIHS tests, they just build safe cars. Tesla even admitted it changed the design of the front to perform better in the NHTSA frontal crash test.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Do you understand what the IIHS test is? they run the car into a brick wall with 25% of the bumper and 40% of the bumper striking the wall head on. In the NHTSA test Tesla used its whole front end to absorb the impact while an IC car can only use the sides because the engine is in the center. If Tessa's sides were as strong as an IC its front impact would be bad because it would stop too fast. Now in the IIHS partial front collision tests the IC car still can use half of its energy absorbing area in both the 25% and the 40% tests. The Tesla will only be able to use 25% and 40% of it's energy absorbing area, I'm sure the sides of the Tesla are stronger then the center so it won't be a complete failure but there is no way it can perform as well as an IC car that also received a 5 star rating for the full frontal crash.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
The cross bracing is irreverent, for a full frontal crash, the one in which Tesla got a 5, if the cross bracing is too strong it will fail the front end crash test because it will stop too fast and the crash test dummies will show injuries. This did not happen so it is safe to assume the whole front of the car absorbed the energy properly. Now in an IC car they can't use the center to absorb the energy so the sides must do all the absorbing. My point is that in a partial head on collision an IC car is going to utilize more of its energy absorbing crumple zone then the Tesla so you would expect it to perform better in the partial head on collision.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
But your caveat is insufficient to draw the claimed conclusion. An individual who is "the sort who cares for safety ratings when making purchasing decisions" is almost certain to have other factors they consider as well--I care about safety ratings, and would not buy a car with less than four stars in all categories, but that does not mean I automatically buy the cheapest such car. If you had said "the sort who cares only for safety ratings when making purchasing decisions" (for example, a parent buying a car for his teenager), it would have been logical to conclude that this person thinks "the only reason to pay more than $50k for any car would be to get a higher crash test rating", but without that exclusion, there could be many other factors to add value in his eyes.
Done and done: see Demolition Man
Done and done: see Demolition Man
I'd really rather not.
Show us where they say that.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
FWIW, you don't need a snorkel, you just need to keep positive pressure in the tailpipe. If you drop your RPMs, you create a backdraft which will suck water water into the exhaust system and kill the engine or what I like to call the "banana in the tailpipe" effect. I've forded many a river in my youth driving an 80s two wheel drive Toyota Hilux. Also got stuck a few times not following this rule.
Yes, I know what all the tests are. What I don't get is your insistence that since Tesla gets to 'use the whole front' it has to perform worse than an IC car that can 'only' use the sides to absorb impact.
I'm sure the sides of the Tesla are stronger then the center so it won't be a complete failure but there is no way it can perform as well as an IC car that also received a 5 star rating for the full frontal crash.
I still fail to see your reasoning holding. I don't understand how a company that has much more design leeway in how the front end is constructed(not having to worry about an IC engine in there), can't design a front end that performs better in *every* crash test, from full-front to 25% front.
Let me go through my reasoning:
1. Front engine IC cars have a generally massive amount of mass in the form of the engine. This engine also limits the amount of cross-bracing available, as well as the true amount of 'crush space'. Meanwhile Tesla can do whatever it wants in the front because it doesn't have the engine to worry about. There are some tricks - today the engine is generally designed to 'fold down' in a crash, helping to keep it out of the passenger compartment and extending the amount of crush space, but they're just assists/makeups compared to somebody who gets to design the front end without those worries.
2. As you mentioned, the sides of a model S are likely still far stronger than the middle. For one we know there's an opening there called the 'fronk'; it's not big, but it's there.
3. 'Crush Zone' doesn't have to be of all equal strength, not only sides vs middle, but from front to back. There's even some tricks that can be done with inertia so that the crumple zone will require more force to collapse a given distance in a high speed impact than it will in a lower speed one. It can have stronger members near the back so that a high speed impact is more survivable while still keeping a 'no serious injury' standard for lower speed ones. There's lots of design possibilities.
4. 'Strength' of members, of all members, not just side ones, is a calculated value - too strong and as you say they stop too fast, too weak and you lose your crumple zone faster and get into cabin intrusion(bad).
5. There's various ways to transfer impact energy to areas not actually impacted. That's why other posters mentioned braces, transfer bars, etc... With the proper bracing you can force the rest of the crush zone to also collapse/deform even in the 25% front area impact. The model S is much more free with the ability to cross-brace than IC engine vehicles.
6. Rear and mid-engine sports cars, where a 120mph front end collision into a static object has to be a primary design consideration tend to do surprisingly well in said collisions without the engine in the way. Tesla can draw from that design experience.
Basically, my estimate is that the Tesla is still going to out-perform other 5* cars with traditional front engines just like they did with the 100% test. They just have too many advantages.
I don't read AC A human right
Not artificially high? How come North American cars don't have amber turn signals then?
Funnily, mine does.
Mandated? Perhaps not. On many cars anyway? Yup!
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
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%.
I don't understand the point you are making - are you saying that because most of the front end of a Tesla Model S, including left side front, right side front, AND middle, are crumple-zone worthy, that it is less safe? Wouldn't that make it more safe?
StarTrekPhase2 - The Five Year Mission Continues!
Most rear wheeled cars have a very short front end. The Tesla has a normal large sedan front end that it can use as a crumple zone
no matter how good it is, it is human nature always wants to make things better
Based on what?
In 1910 the electric car had a 40 mile range. In 2013 it's 50, 60 miles under real world conditions. You're telling me we are going to a many thousand fold increase in battery efficiency in 10 years?
This is the same song and dance we were told about Solar and Wind.... in the 1970's. Didn't happen. Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Murphy was an optimist
The Volt, BTW, costs General Motors around $15,000 on each car they sell. That's the net LOSS to GM. What a great business model!! Once the government dumps their stock, and stops FORCING federal agencies to buy these Turkeys, they will go the way of the DeLorean.
Murphy was an optimist
Kind of how like new drugs are very expensive at first, then cheap generics come out when the patent expires.
I wouldn't have it any other way. The profits made possible by patent protection are the reason billions get poured into R&D to develop new drugs. "Reforming" the system to do away with this would be a childish, self-loathing outburst: "If poor people can't have these remarkable new drugs, nobody can!"
That that is is that that that that is not is not.
Wasn't the next tesla vehicle going to compete against the $50k luxury SUV's?
Next vehicle, yes. I said next-generation, meaning their next sedan.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
With proper cross bracing, you are still wrong. The side doesn't need to absorb "all" the crash, it can transfer it to the other side. It also has a floor, something no front engined car has.
Your irrational and hate-filled opinions are not based in fact. The fact is they outperformed nearly everyone in a frontal crash, and there's no evidence they'd do any worse in an offset crash.
Learn to love Alaska
You can be wary all you like and speculate all you like, but we have real-world collisions to look at already including ones with fatalities (not the Model S' passengers - they're all fine).
http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/forums/model-s-safe
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-BoVsb74ZVTU/Ueo211zIQ0I/AAAAAAAAAHA/57Td1d4rr0I/w927-h522-no/TeslaHeadOnCollision-k-bigpic.jpg
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-rlB359m59V8/Ueo2xioWUBI/AAAAAAAAAGw/ETAizn3DfnQ/w465-h586-no/TeslaHeadOnCollision-Front.png
https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/--CoWlEVV2ro/Ueo2FZEw-nI/AAAAAAAAAEo/hqraTBRsqog/w854-h475-no/HeadOnCollisionCabinIntact.jpg
Scroll down just a bit and you'll see a Honda and BMW that were obliterated and a couple Teslas looking a bit banged up. The drivers have posted on various forums about their experiences. Honda generally makes some pretty safe cars, but you won't be able to find out about the experience of the people in the accident with the Model S because the Honda failed to save their lives. The Model S driver walked away with minor injuries and that was a 1/4 head-on.
Got any other theories about how the Model S will perform?
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Why do people here insult each other? Beats me. Anyway, you,AC, found the right tone.
Well, well
Funnily, mine does.
You are clearly anti-american.
Well, well
Pleas explain to me how this is possible that the cross bracing would not be utilized in a full head on collision, causing the vehicle to stop to fast and injuring the crash test dummies?
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
The thing I can't understand is if the cross bracing is used to improve the partial tests why won't it stop too fast in the full frontal test. If you look at the video of the crash test you see that up to the front wheels is crushed which is where the frame starts there is not a lot of crumple space left, so I'm assuming they don't have much energy absorption left. The exact same can be said of the 5 star rated optima, but in the optima's case the majority of the crumple zone is in the sides. The amount of cross bracing required to spread the partial impact across the whole front crumple zone would render the crumple zone completely rigid. I just don't think it is possible to have the front cushioned enough to stop properly in a full crash and not lose the majority of the cushioning in a partial test.
Knowledge = Power
P= W/t
t=Money
Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
Yeah, but nobody knows what they are used for, LOL.
You USians should be proud of being good drivers. Here in Euroland we basically all suck: Slow as ducks (here in Holland) or fast and dangerous as in Spain. Maybe the German...
-- 29A the number of the Beast
I'm not an American...we have Holland-style driving by me :-(
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Not as annoying as people who write "break" instead of "brake".
No sig today...
The thing I can't understand is if the cross bracing is used to improve the partial tests why won't it stop too fast in the full frontal test.
The amount of cross bracing required to spread the partial impact across the whole front crumple zone would render the crumple zone completely rigid.
Ever worked with a collapsing stand? A brace can be designed to be strong enough to hold an elephant from one direction, yet collapse with a push of a finger in another. Just design the brace to provide strength side to side on the car, not lengthwise. It doesn't have to provide structural strength/resistance to impact. What I'm picturing them being used for is to transfer force. Picture two lines that represent the sides of the car. When an impact occurs, the lines collapse depending on the impact forces and their strength. Their strength is calibrated to protect the passengers up to a impact of X velocity, more or less without injury.
Obviously if you only impact ONE of these lines with the same amount of force it'll collapse faster. If you used the full distance for the prior test, the whole line will collapse, indicating penetration into the cabin and injury to passengers. If you fatten up the lines to the point that only 1 line is sufficient for the impact, an impact against 2 will result in too much shock to the cabin.
So let's add some bracing - put an X attaching from the front of the lines to about the midpoint of the opposite. Heck, you can have a number of such X's running the length. Now run the simulation again - when both lines are hit with equal impact, they collapse equally and the bracing does nothing. But if only 1 is hit, once the one line collapses to the point that it hits the bottom of an X, it has to start dragging the 2nd line with it, transferring impact energy to the other side of the vehicle. BTW, the bracing is designed to be strong tensile(pulling), not compressive force(pushing). It'll collapse easy, but pull hard. The second line will probably bend sideways, but this is still an opportunity to dump energy and can be designed for.
If you look at the video of the crash test you see that up to the front wheels is crushed which is where the frame starts there is not a lot of crumple space left, so I'm assuming they don't have much energy absorption left.
You haven't seen enough crash images of modern cars then. I've seen images of 'walk away once they cut you out' accidents where the wheels(and engine) had been pushed underneath the cabin. If the front wheels are still mostly in the proper spot they have like 2' left.
Take, for example, how the Volvo S60 did. Now, not the same test(still looking), but note how the wheel comes completely off. Want the no offset picture?
Also, small overlap test seems to be more about having the car push itself sideways a bit, keeping the cabin out of the impact, but allowing it to proceed past the impact point.
Also, found this: "Tesla determined it would meet the NHTSA front crash test with a 5-star rating and “Tesla then analyzed the Model S to determine the weakest points in the car and retested at those locations until the car achieved 5 stars no matter how the test equipment was configured.” In other words, Tesla expects to perform at a 5-star level no matter how much or little offset in the actual crash. Or better."
I don't read AC A human right
if your mode of transport didn't always contain 50-100 litres of highly flammable and explosive liquid... just saying.
Having to had taken multiple WHIMIS (Workplace Hazards somethingthatstartswithI Materials... etc..) training back in the day pretty much the most common and dangerous thing people work with is gasoline.
Pleas explain to me how this is possible that the cross bracing would not be utilized in a full head on collision, causing the vehicle to stop to fast and injuring the crash test dummies?
Why? Are you going to listen this time, or just keep asking questions until I say something you'll take as a concession so you can walk away content in your blissful hatred and ignorance?
The cross bracing is designed to transfer energy from one side to the other. In a full-frontal, the energy transferred is equal to energy received, so it does nothing. In an offset, the energy transmitted is much greater than received, improving performance beyond what you'd get in a "traditonal" car. Slashdot, the home of the "I can't think of it in 10 seconds with no training or knowledge of the subject, so it's obviously impossible."
You do know that "regular" cars do use cross bracing for crash performance, right? Right pain in the ass to change oil on some of the cars where the bracing partially blocks the bottom, or on the Cadillac V8s for a while where the spark plugs couldn't be accessed without pulling the heads because of the bracing above (which is why they were the first American car to come with the 100,000 mile spark plugs). 80's-90's Camaros are another set that has bracing above the engine. But it was possible (however difficult) to reach the plugs from above. Most owners I know replaced the plugs with the 100,000 mile ones on the first opportunity.
Learn to love Alaska
I'm surprised there aren't more people importing old Hyluxes once they hit the 25-year mark which makes it legal. I mean, for a Hylux, that's barely broken in.
I don't know about the Hylux, but a few years ago I considered having an R34 Skyline imported, especially since Japan requires cars to be retired at somewhere around 30-40K miles (can't remember the exact figure).
Anyway, from what I read it would have been at least $30,000 to import the car itself, and another $30K to have the emissions converted to the USA standard. I figured that, as much as I love the R34 styling, if I was going to drop 60 large on an all-wheel-drive beastmobile, I might as well get a GTR.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Blah blah blah look dude, if you're expecting to have every single tiny element and allusion spelled out for you, you're barkin' up the wrong tree. I expect people to have the presence of mind to figure things out for themselves, and as such do not bother with lengthy explanations of what I meant. Whether or not you choose to accept that is your prerogative, but I don't make a habit of over-explaining myself to people who don't get it - I clarified my statement in my last post, and whether or not you choose to accept said clarification isn't really my problem.
But hey - it's supposed to be nice this weekend, you should enjoy it! I know I'm going to.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
I think gas engines can get almost submerged, but they have to have air to run right? So if there is water over the top of the engine, it is going to stop eventually right?
I used to drive my Jeep in water that was high enough to get my feet wet, but I don't know any Jeep drivers that would try that if the water was over the steering wheel...
It's not even proper engineer's mindset. An engineer speaks from field experience, or at least knowledge verified by past experimentation.
This is just some armchair know-it-all, like a lot of people commenting on Slashdot. A software engineer, more likely.
My exception safety is -fno-exceptions.