Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Tesla earns its first-ever safety award from IIHS for Model 3

iihs.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 130 posts

Re: Tesla earns its first-ever safety award from IIHS for Model 3

#31

Post by baybal2 »

ProfessorLayton wrote: post #19
baybal2 wrote: post #14

I put to doubt the utility of crash safety ratings. The survival rates for collisions on highway speeds are in single digits no matter what you do. It's just laws of physics. Modern luxury sedans have 1m+ crumple zones, and those only make for few percents extra chance at speeds above 60km/h. Extending crumple zones beyond that is self defeating, as it will only lead to further increase of average car mass, leading t…

Most collisions don’t happen at highway speeds and the crash tests are designed accordingly.

Yes, but collisions below 60km/h got quite survivable back in nineties.

Airbag, seatbelt with pretensioner, rigid cabin, and some crumple zone is all it takes to survive a crash below that speed.

For a healthy, non overweight person, below 40, survival rates already close to 85%-90%.

The reason I'm ringing an alarm here is that survival rates began to slide back since mid naughties exactly because of the trend for more heavier cars being marketed as "safer" resulting in more violent car to car collisions, and more cars going through road barriers.

Re: Tesla earns its first-ever safety award from IIHS for Model 3

#32

Post by SEJeff »

mc32 wrote: post #28
SEJeff wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.iihs.org/ratings/about-our-tests#roof-strength-t...

Thanks that’s good information. I still have a concern in that it appears this is a controlled pressure (it’s not a sudden violent impact), if it is a sudden violent impact then it’s not expressed that way to me. Metal gives and then fails. Glass gives minimally, and depending on tempering, can fail very, very quickly.

But it is safety glass, and the roof is still re-enforced with metal.

Re: Tesla earns its first-ever safety award from IIHS for Model 3

#33

Post by SEJeff »

baybal2 wrote: post #23
SEJeff wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of vehicles have less crush strength than the Model 3, and most of them don't have glass roofs. If you recall... the NTHSA testing of the Model S literally broke their machine. The NTHSA said the Model S had the best rollover test (top impact from their machine trying to crush it) of anything they've ever tested. https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/videos/a5238/watch-the... To really answer your question, I've…

One moment you missed. Electric cars are very heavy, and their centres of mass tend to be right below the cabin. Having very strong pillars is pretty much a prerequisite for surviving a rollover in an EV.

Most people tell me the BMW 330i is very comparable to a Model 3, and its curb weight is 3,582 to 3,764 lbs (per BMW). The Model 3's curb weight is 3,627 to 4,072 lbs (per Tesla).

That isn't as big of a difference as I'd have expected.

Re: Tesla earns its first-ever safety award from IIHS for Model 3

#34

Post by maxerickson »

baybal2 wrote: post #23
SEJeff wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of vehicles have less crush strength than the Model 3, and most of them don't have glass roofs. If you recall... the NTHSA testing of the Model S literally broke their machine. The NTHSA said the Model S had the best rollover test (top impact from their machine trying to crush it) of anything they've ever tested. https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/videos/a5238/watch-the... To really answer your question, I've…

One moment you missed. Electric cars are very heavy, and their centres of mass tend to be right below the cabin. Having very strong pillars is pretty much a prerequisite for surviving a rollover in an EV.

The Model 3 is ~25% heavier than Ford Fusion.

Re: Tesla earns its first-ever safety award from IIHS for Model 3

#35

Post by lucb1e »

SEJeff wrote: post #2

This is the part that gets me: The Institute’s results also demonstrate the exceptional strength of Model 3’s all-glass roof, which is supported by a very strong metal body structure and helps protect occupants in roll-over crashes. During testing, the car’s roof was able to successfully resist more than 20,000 pounds of force – that’s more than if we placed five Model 3s on top of the car’s roof at once. And, the ro…

So my phone may not yet have 5G, but my car can definitely pull 5G on its roof.

Sure how many Gs one typically pulls during a car crash. 5 doesn't strike me as a lot, but of course this is specifically about force applied to the roof. I guess you have to not just roll but actually fall on top of it somehow. At any rate, some actual data would be great instead of being amazed at this marketing statement.

Re: Tesla earns its first-ever safety award from IIHS for Model 3

#36

Post by SEJeff »

saiya-jin wrote: post #6
SEJeff wrote: post #2

This is the part that gets me: The Institute’s results also demonstrate the exceptional strength of Model 3’s all-glass roof, which is supported by a very strong metal body structure and helps protect occupants in roll-over crashes. During testing, the car’s roof was able to successfully resist more than 20,000 pounds of force – that’s more than if we placed five Model 3s on top of the car’s roof at once. And, the ro…

Static load is a nice number, but that's not what car safety test should be about - car crash is a rather violent dynamic event. I guess most common situation is rolling of the car, with possible stop at some wall with roof absorbing most of the impact. I am not sure tests of such an event would be still so favorable. Or to put it differently - that's an impressive achievement of a situation that will never happen to…

Ask literally anyone who's been in a horrific wreck in a tesla and walked away. They're incredibly safe vehicles.

There have been some pretty insane examples of this, such as this one: https://www.autoblog.com/2016/05/06/tesla-model-s-crash-germ...

Re: Tesla earns its first-ever safety award from IIHS for Model 3

#37

Post by baybal2 »

volkl48 wrote: post #26
baybal2 wrote: post #14

I put to doubt the utility of crash safety ratings. The survival rates for collisions on highway speeds are in single digits no matter what you do. It's just laws of physics. Modern luxury sedans have 1m+ crumple zones, and those only make for few percents extra chance at speeds above 60km/h. Extending crumple zones beyond that is self defeating, as it will only lead to further increase of average car mass, leading t…

> The survival rates for collisions on highway speeds are in single digits no matter what you do. As in what, a head-on collision between vehicles traveling at 70mph? Yeah, that's not likely to end well. It's also a highly uncommon event and not what the safety ratings are testing for, nor is it what anyone is realistically expecting their car to protect them from. The small overlap front test is reasonable. It's a 4…

For that, sure, but for that even 20 year old cars had good enough structural integrity. By late nineties Japanese cars were already full in into the science of crash safety with concepts like safety volumes, and rigidity belts being fully adopted in mass market cars.

Most advances past that level just got cars getting unreasonably heavy, and more lethal, as a result, in car to car collisions, which in turn results in even higher expectations being placed.

That's why "safety marketing" tells only one side of the story.

Re: Tesla earns its first-ever safety award from IIHS for Model 3

#38

Post by moduspol »

baybal2 wrote: post #23
SEJeff wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lots of vehicles have less crush strength than the Model 3, and most of them don't have glass roofs. If you recall... the NTHSA testing of the Model S literally broke their machine. The NTHSA said the Model S had the best rollover test (top impact from their machine trying to crush it) of anything they've ever tested. https://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/videos/a5238/watch-the... To really answer your question, I've…

One moment you missed. Electric cars are very heavy, and their centres of mass tend to be right below the cabin. Having very strong pillars is pretty much a prerequisite for surviving a rollover in an EV.

They're not all that heavy any more.

The Tesla Model 3 is 3552-4072 lbs, while the new Jeep Wrangler (JL) is 3955-4455 lbs.

Re: Tesla earns its first-ever safety award from IIHS for Model 3

#39

Post by gamblor956 »

01100011 wrote: post #30
gamblor956 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I rarely see an analyst speak about Tesla's impressive record in building safe cars. Tesla's car safety features are not a major selling point compared to its EV features, and moreover are generally features common to EVs (i.e., additional crumple zones, floor rigidity). Tesla's autopilot still struggles to identify white trucks against a blue sky, and highway dividers, and can't seem to tell when the driver is a…

Don't forget Toyota and the saga of the mysterious acceleration. IIRC, Toyota was eventually successfully sued because they did not follow industry best practices in developing the sw for the ECU. Any idea if Tesla's software is following, say, ISO26262?

Yes, that was a big issue too. Covered by every newspaper and media organization in the West, multiple investigations by safety agencies and private parties, and their stock was downgraded by analysts during this "saga."

Any idea if Tesla's software is following, say, ISO26262?

With respect to the console? Unknown. With respect to Autopilot? It's clear that they're not, since they're are too many issues and regressions that would have been caught if they were following those standards.

Re: Tesla earns its first-ever safety award from IIHS for Model 3

#40

Post by dsfyu404ed »

baybal2 wrote: post #37
volkl48 wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The survival rates for collisions on highway speeds are in single digits no matter what you do. As in what, a head-on collision between vehicles traveling at 70mph? Yeah, that's not likely to end well. It's also a highly uncommon event and not what the safety ratings are testing for, nor is it what anyone is realistically expecting their car to protect them from. The small overlap front test is reasonable. It's a 4…

For that, sure, but for that even 20 year old cars had good enough structural integrity. By late nineties Japanese cars were already full in into the science of crash safety with concepts like safety volumes, and rigidity belts being fully adopted in mass market cars. Most advances past that level just got cars getting unreasonably heavy, and more lethal, as a result, in car to car collisions, which in turn results i…

20yr ago a 40mph partial overlap would have put whatever you were overlapping with in the foot-well.
Post reply on HN