Slashdot Mirror
Tesla's Inherent Safety Saves Five Joyriding Teenagers In Germany (arstechnica.com)
According to German newspaper Merkur, one 18-year old and four of her friends lost control of her father's Model S electric vehicle. The car reportedly flew more than 80 feet into a field before it came to a stop. Even though the driver and two of the passengers were airlifted to hospitals, none of their injuries were life-threatening, thanks largely in part to Tesla's skateboard chassis. Ars Technica writes, "The skateboard chassis used by the Model S and Model X is extremely safe, with crumple zones that are unconcerned with engines that can transfer kinetic energy into the passengers during a frontal collision." The images of the crash are not pretty, but one could imagine how much worse they would be if a front-engined internal combustion vehicle were involved instead of the Tesla Model S.
The car is as safe as any other modern car.
Plenty of cars in that price range have "inherent safety" and would protect its occupants in a similar accident, even though they run on an internal combustion engine.
Oh how long we've waited for this sign that physics worked exactly how we formulated it would. Think of the possibilities this entails, being able to plan out systems ahead of time using math and sound principles of modeled dynamics. We could call it a new field. I know, since it involved not having an engine in the front, we could call it "engineering!"
We'll build a better world, I tell you!
This forum Sig is licensed under the LGPL.
"(According to comments left at electrek.co, about the only way to fatally crash a Tesla appears to be driving one off a cliff at high speed.)"
I bet crashing it into a brick wall at high speed would be fatal.
Next up: Tesla inherent awesomeness saves puppies.
I have unfortunately been involved in a couple of major accidents and have had 1 of my cars look similar to this, though in my case the rear of the car was destroyed as well. I'm not seeing anything there that would make you think the Telsa was inherently safer. They may not have a front mounted ICE but they do have batteries and electric motors that aren't mass free.
The one where my car ended up looking the worst was when I was rear ended by a semi-trailer that then pushed me into the car in front. I was stationary, he was doing 70kph at time of impact. The car I was driving was a 3 month old Mercedes E200D and was a total write off. I was the driver, wife in the passenger seat and two kids in the back, 1 in a baby capsule. Amazingly we all walked away despite the boot coming in through the rear windscreen.
"one 18-year old and four of her friends lost control of her father's Model S electric vehicle"
They shouldn't all try to control it at the same time. It's dangerous yo.
Apparently the author of the german article mistook the Model S name as a hint to Sport, and he continuously called the Model S a sportscar in the article.
It is news for nerd, at least me as a nerd, interested into security things like crumple zone , doing finite element analyzis etc... And if Tesla is using a different method with better effect then yeah that's highly interesting.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
This advertainment informercial has been brought to you by Tesla; saving kittens the world over.
80 feet... into a flat field, beside a road that's also flat and on the same level.
Sorry, but if your car CAN'T survive that without lethal injury, how the hell has it passed basic safety tests like Euro NCAP ratings?
Next question - what speed were you doing on that unbordered single-lane country road that you lose control and drive 80-feet into a field?
This safety demonstration was brought to you by our sponsor, Tesla, indeed.
I would like to see a Tesla under such a condition
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If you fuck off, it'll be marginally more worth reading.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
So saying it is "inherently safe" or that a petrol vehicle would fare worse is pretty absurd. Inherently safe cars don't plant themselves 25m into fields in the first place regardless of their form of propulsion. And that's without even knowing what caused the accident in the first place.
Given that most of the glass is still intact, I'm leaning towards this being either a low velocity impact, or a med/high velocity crash spread over a long distance and time (which also means low impact forces). Which means the fact that the front end shattered like that is really troubling. Perhaps the additional mass of the battery pack (the Tesla weighs as much as an SUV because of the battery pack) contributed to demolishing the front end despite the low impact forces? In an ICE vehicle, the bulk of the mass (engine) is in the front and it absorbs impact forces directly instead of through the structural beams. In a Tesla, the bulk of the mass is in the battery pack underneath the passenger compartment. Since the passenger compartment is designed to remain intact, the kinetic energy of the battery pack has to be fully absorbed by the structural beans in the front or rear.
I would assume Tesla strengthened the beams by a corresponding amount to pass the crash safety tests. But those tests only cover direct front impacts, not a car leaving the ground and impacting the ground at (say) a slight nose-down pitch. The cantilever forces in such an impact due to the additional torque caused by the heavy battery pack behind it could account for the front shattering and shearing off like that.
He referring to this Slashdot story, also posted today:
cientists: Electric Vehicles Produce As Many Toxins As Dirty Diesels
https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
This is a very shaky claim. Although the photos show severe damage to the front of the car, there is little evidence of crumpling in the areas designed to absorb a head-on impact. The extremities of all modern cars are designed to absorb as much impact energy as possible, and this is visible even in less-serious accidents: they fall apart when knocked about. Is see no evidence that the presence of an engine block would have made any difference to the reported outcome of this crash.
... I wonder if the driver survived the aftermath when her father saw what she did to his car. I doubt if the insurers are going to cover the loss.
"The problem with internet quotes is that you cant always depend on their accuracy" -Abraham Lincoln, 1864
for me (having relatives around there) the headline reads: "rich kids speeds too fast, crashes daddys car, noone else there, so nobody's hurt". Sadly the (much more) common headline is: "joyriding kid crashes father's Porsche into , 2 dead, joyriding party gets out unscathed but shows signs of consumption". There's nothing too be proud about this, it only show's that Tesla is not going to be the social-mobile-revolutionary company it pictures itself, but just another toy-maker for the 1%.
flew more than 80 feet
The linked German article (as well as a follow-up) does not mention anything about the car flying... it says the car overturned until it landed back on its wheels (which explains all the bodywork damage in the photo...).
Also, 80 feet???? Germany have not used such a unit in a couple of years ^H^H^H^H^H centuries. Might still be in use in the USA, Burma and Liberia. And perhaps the UK and Canada.
Free, as in your money being freed from the confines of your account.
I'm sure we've got teenagers around here that would try for 90 feet. (meters?)
I'm pretty sure it must have been feet. I'm not saying it's impossible to get a car crash ending up 80 meters from the road but it would probably require an adjacent 80 meter cliff.
".. what your food or your food's food inhaled."
Perhaps you meant 'ingested'?
He raises a good point though. They might as well rename this place ElonDot, or SlashMusk.
Yep, the one where they claim that electric vehicles' brake pads wear more quickly. That should give you a hint about the quality of their research.
The driver lost control and the vehicle flipped, probably impacting the ground with several of its surfaces in sequency. An actual front-end collision (car hitting obstacle with its front side, which has to absorb basically all of the energy of the impact) is different.
The images of the crash are not pretty, but one could imagine how much worse they would be if a front-engined internal combustion vehicle were involved instead of the Tesla Model S.
And what about comparing it to a mid-engine internal combustion vehicle? That would be more consistent in terms of center of mass with the Tesla Batteries.
Considering the Tesla S is an up market sports car this is probably reasonable to do, as there are mid-engine cars in that space for comparison.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
They didn't claim that. They assumed brake wear in electric vehicles is negligiable. However, due to the increased weight of electric vehiclese, they are subject to more tyre wear and they cause more road wear. Read the study and stop spreading FUD.
The actual article is behind a pay wall, but the Daily Mail summary unambiguously says:
- That was finding of a study looking at particles from tyre and brake wear
- Made heavier by batteries and parts meaning tyres and brakes wear faster
The Daily Mail article itself continues with multiple references to brake wear. Not once does it mention regenerative braking.
Now I do admit that I should know better than to assume that a Daily Mail article about a paper would be in any way related to the actual contents of the paper, and it's entirely possible that the actual paper, behind the paywall, says exactly the opposite. Maybe it will even say that EVs are cleaner after all.
You're definitely a dipshit for assuming they were taking anyone seriously.
Fine with me; he's the closest thing to an idol we've got and for good reason.
Inherently safe cars don't plant themselves 25m into fields in the first place regardless of their form of propulsion.
You were in the process of making a very valid point when the above suddenly managed to slip out of your asshole...
To the contrary, newest updates make a point of the fact that the car supposedly was equipped with a much smaller engine than previously thought, 236 instead of 700 horsepower.
I believe the front motor in most AWD Model S's puts out about that much horsepower.
I'm pretty sure it must have been feet. I'm not saying it's impossible to get a car crash ending up 80 meters from the road but it would probably require an adjacent 80 meter cliff.
80 meters = 262 feet
Average braking distance on dry pavement at 80 mph = 320 feet (http://www.government-fleet.com/content/driver-care-know-your-stopping-distance.aspx)
There's less friction while careening across a field than there is on dry tarmac, so I doubt 80 meters would be difficult to achieve, especially viewing those photos from the article - it's a very flat field with very few obstacles, and it sure looks like they traveled at least 80 meters.
The car is as safe as any other modern car.
Nope. It actually *is* safer.
Here's why (from the top of my head):
1) The center of weight is notably lower (huge battery pack along the floor, no huge motor up front), making the Tesla Model S safer in handling than other limosines.
2) It has no motor and thus a *way* better crumpling zone in the forward trunk.
3) Right now tt has the best driving-assistance on the streets and in end-users hands.
My 0.02 Euros.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Never in a month of sundays did that car roll.
Wrong. Quote from the accident report:
"Der Wagen überschlug sich und kam schwer beschädigt wieder auf den Rädern zum Stehen."
Literal translation (German grammar, you'll figure what it means): "The car rolled and came heavily damaged on it's wheels to a standing."
So it did roll, at least once. According to the report exactly once.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
Seriously, Tesla makes other car makers look bad. The question is , can they do it with model 3, as well as the coming $20k car?
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Really? No idol of mine - just another hyped-up salesman. My idols are those that strive to improve the life of others via technology, social work, opposition to extremists of all kinds or just trying to make a difference.
The images of the crash are not pretty, but one could imagine how much worse they would be if a front-engined internal combustion vehicle were involved instead of the Tesla Model S.
You can imagine all day, but as long as you're only using your imagination and not crashing testing or computer modeling, you're just being a stupid ass.
The fact is that the Tesla is not at all unique in its ability to protect the occupants from harm in a ridiculously major collision. Look at Audi A8 crash photos sometime. There have been a fairly high number of incidents in which the car was very well mangled (even to the point of "what part is that?") and yet all the occupants walked away. You can expect this to be true out of basically any of the truly modern premium vehicles, that is, made out of Aluminum or better. That's because they don't have to make poor tradeoffs for crash safety, they just cost more money. But mind you, lots of the really scary-looking crashes I'm talking about were in the original A8, which was finalized way back in 1993 and appeared as a 2004 model.
The idea that the essential design of the vehicle protected these passengers better than would another car in the same price range is specious at best.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Probably the shameless and extreme lie currently on display here:
https://hardware.slashdot.org/...
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Really? No idol of mine
Then go find a site that worships your god.
"However, due to the increased weight of electric vehiclese, they are subject to more tyre wear and they cause more road wear"
I can't recall anyone making much fuss over the many, many, many F-150s, other trucks & SUVs that have been causing excessive tyre & road wear since the 80s, or acknowledging that 18-wheelers & buses should bear the burden of paying for most of the road repair since they cause, by far, most of the damage.
Pain is merely failure leaving the body
So skateboards are inherently safe, got it.
My eyes reflect the stars and a smile lights up my face.
"... Model X is extremely safe, with crumple zones that are unconcerned with engines that can transfer kinetic energy"
The word "unconcerned" makes no sense here. I'm guessing they may have meant "unaffected" or "unconnected" or "not affected".
ENGRISH MUTHAFUGGAH, dew ewe speek it??
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
In perfect conditions, your car may be able to go from 80mph to zero in 117ft, not counting reaction time.
In this case, there was no reaction. All stopping was done by the car hitting things and tumbling across the dirt.
What's the distance your car can stop from 80mph on loose dirt? I'll bet it's still more than 80 meters.
that can transfer kinetic energy into the passengers during a frontal collision.
WTF? That's NOT what you want to happen during a crash. Where did this come from? From TFA:
can effectively dissipate the kinetic energy of a crash
That's a more accurate description of crumple zones function. Editor could have just copy/pasted this and not been so horribly wrong.
PS. Photos of the wrecked Tesla with unbroken windows demonstrate how well the passenger compartment was protected during the crash.
Have gnu, will travel.
This article is about 18 year olds. There's no such thing as "enabling [them] to be riskier". No matter how safe or unsafe something is, kids that age will test its limits and generally exceed them.
So you think the government should buy you a Tesla for $108,000?
Even the cheapest economy car these days has excellent crash protection compared to cars made 10, 20, or more years ago. Tesla is working on producing their new Model 3, which costs a fraction of what the Model S costs. The level of safety available to poorer car buyers is constantly improving. You're probably much safer in a brand-new econobox than in a 30-year-old Volvo.
Without teenagers we'd never have found out how a Tesla will behave in a real-world crash situation because the only people who can afford to actually buy one are loaded old geezers who drive like their grandmas.
Now we know.
licet differant, aequabitur
Look at the pictures - do you see 'crumple zones' or do you see explosive deconstruction of a vehicle?
Here's a clue: aluminum has a much lower shear point than steel. Most vehicles are still constructed of steel.
The reason why the Tesla does so much better than most cars today is because most cars no longer have a 'frame' - this has been compromised for weight savings, instead you get a folded, tucked, and extruded steel underbody of variable thickness.
By switching to aluminum, and using a rigid subframe, they are able to use a thicker frame and come out ahead on the weight versus a steel subframed vehicle without compromising much. You'll see the same thing when comparing a Tesla to a subframed truck, really - or for instance, the F-150 Raptor. Granted, the Tesla has what appears to be a remarkably good subframe (similar to what people might weld up for off-road buggies), but it isn't anything miraclulous or all that significant. Arguably, it's going to fare notably worse than some I-beam constructed vehicles... from almost 40 years ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NaXlbAcFqYQ
~/ssh slashdot.org ssh: connect to host slashdot.org port 22: too many beers
What if you don't give a shit about the environment and just think they are sweet cars?
Also, worth mentioning that climate change is a much bigger issue than strip mining. Strip mining is no worse the natural geologic processes the Earth goes through reshaping itself every day.
Not at 80 MPH it doesn't.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
So, some kids wreck their parents' car, and survive. Why was this such a big deal? There aren't many details of the crash. We don't even know if the front end was damaged by a head on hit, or sheared off sideways during the flips/rolls. The other details (flying through the air, rolling), aren't that big a deal. In my area, a mother and daughter flew down a very steep hill far more than 80 feet (at highway speeds, no less), and walked away from the wreck. My wife flipped her car on ice into a ditch, and everybody walked away. Some of the kids in this accident were AIRLIFTED to hospitals. Why was Tesla's performance in this crash so spectacular that /. had to post it?
The "Little Brown book of Contemporary Trolls - volume 5".
So he isn't trying to improve the lives of others through technology? Long term, electric cars will be a benefit to us all, and he is leading the way here. Cheap satellite launches will likely be a benefit to us as well.
He is more than "just another hyped-up salesman". Sure, he is over-hyped, and he encourages it as it helps him get funding to achieve his goals. But he isn't just a salesman, what he has achieved with SpaceX and Tesla is impressive.
I'm not saying you should idolise him, but you shouldn't be so dismissive of him and his achievements either.
I think he means self-driving cars. Those don't try to recreate GTA in real life and are inherently safer.
HEY! Who the heck are you to push anyone off this site?
Thanks for clarifying.
The word would then be 'absorb' as plants don't typically have lungs.