Slashdot Mirror
Tesla Model X the First SUV Ever To Achieve 5-Star Crash Rating in Every Category (tesla.com)
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has awarded the 2017 Tesla Model X five-star crash safety ratings in every category. From the company's blog: More than just resulting in a 5-star rating, the data from NHTSA's testing shows that Model X has the lowest probability of injury of any SUV it has ever tested. In fact, of all the cars NHTSA has ever tested, Model X's overall probability of injury was second only to Model S. Model X performs so much better in a crash than gas-powered SUVs because of its all-electric architecture and powertrain design. The rigid, fortified battery pack that powers Model X is mounted beneath the floor of the vehicle creating a center of gravity so low that Model X has the lowest rollover probability of any SUV on the road. No other SUV has ever come close to meeting and exceeding this rollover requirement.
Can anyone explain this in car analogy?
Sure, but that's true if you get hit by a semi too, or honestly if you're in a car of any kind and get ploughed by an F-350 or above even. it's not like they mounted guns on the thing and told the NHTSA "go mad max on any vehicle coming towards you" to game the test and make it safer at the cost of being lethal to others
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
It's like they took a Model S and then stretched it vertically a bit and called it a SUV. (And added FALCON DOORS!!) To most normal people that's not a SUV.
I love Tesla, but the rationale of the Model X has always been a mystery to me.
I'd wager it has something to do with the fact that Teslas are not the boring/slow tree-hugging econoboxes that electric cars are "supposed" to be. Teslas are sexy, fast, luxurious, and prone to turn heads. They prove that you can indeed make a competitive electric vehicle that people want, and will pay for - and they therefore represent a threat to several of the reasons why internal combustion engines currently dominate the market (and most of the remaining ones are potentially in view as well).
As for myself, despite my love for fast/classic cars, I say great - if I can get speed and performance, then that's what matters to me, not whether I'm using a turbo V6, a naturally aspirated V8, a rotary, or if it's nothing but batteries all the way down. There's also something of an argument that electric/hybrid is actually better even for high end perforance (Seriously, go look at the Porsche 918, the McLaren P1, or the Ferrari The Ferrari). The future isn't something to be scared of - at least as I see it.
What do you prefer, damage to your car, or damage to yourself? Cars have crumple zones for a reason, and if the car is totally rigid and the frame remains in the same shape after a crash, that means that all of the energy was transferred directly to the passengers.
True.
Of course, if you want to lower your chances of fires and explosions when driving, then you go electric. As it is, diesel and esp gasoline are much higher risk of either blowing up, or worse, putting you on fire and just burning you alive.
With tesla, no explosions, and when the battery catches fire, the car will pull over and tell you to get out.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
Actually not true. In fact, your statement is the opposite of true because other vehicles / pedestrians / bicycles involved in a collision with a Model X have a better chance of survival than they would with an alternative vehicle, not worse. Unlike most SUVs the Model X does not achieve improved results from high mass or high body rigidity that can overwhelm another vehicle or obstacle but rather because it has larger and better designed crumple zones which allow longer and smoother deceleration in a collision. This is possible because the entire drive train is down below the collision height. For pedestrian and cyclist collisions the front hood additionally is designed to crush under impact and soften the blow. They can do this with the X better than most ICE vehicles because there's no rigid engine under the front hood.
this is not a sig
Elon mentionned a few times that what matters is the total crumple zone of both cars (at least in collision where crumple zone matters). Meaning that it's safer to be hit by a tesla with a bigger crumple zone then by an equivalent ICE vehicule with half the crumble zone. If a normal ICE car has a crumble of 1, when they hit each other they split a total of 2 in 2, 1 each. If a tesla has a crumple zone of 2 it means that the total crumple zone is 3 and each car get 1.5 the crumple zone and both cars are safer due to the tesla (or another car with the equivalent crumple zone).
Fucking really?
Just last week, I was driving home (in suburban Sydney) when an SUV collided with another vehicle (he jumped a red light, but really wasn't going terribly fast, I doubt he was going over 50kph).
Result - it rolled. (And slid along the road upside down towards me, but that's another underwear changing story).
I think everybody should stop driving these huge and dangerous vehicles altogether. Electric or otherwise. Mind you, had it bee a Tesla, with a huge battery set low in the car, it might not have rolled, and instead wiped out the small car it hit.
"Cats like plain crisps"