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

Tesla Adds Titanium Underbody Shield and Aluminum Deflector Plates to Model S

teslamotors.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 408 posts

Re: Tesla Adds Titanium Underbody Shield and Aluminum Deflector Plates to Model S

#151

Post by slig »

moron4hire wrote: post #89
threeseed wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes which is childish and pathetic. Car safety should never, ever be joked about. People's lives are at stake.

John Cleese doesn't agree: “Too many people confuse being serious with being solemn.” He expands: Now I suggest to you that a group of us could be sitting around after dinner, discussing matters that were extremely serious like the education of our chil- dren, or our marriages, or the meaning of life (and I’m not talking about the film), and we could be laughing, and that would not make what we were discuss- ing one…

And here's the video of Cleese reading the eulogy at Chapman's memorial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkxCHybM6Ek

Re: Tesla Adds Titanium Underbody Shield and Aluminum Deflector Plates to Model S

#152

Post by cl8ton »

zacharycohn wrote: post #5

"We believe these changes will also help prevent a fire resulting from an extremely high speed impact that tears the wheels off the car, like the other Model S impact fire, which occurred last year in Mexico. This happened after the vehicle impacted a roundabout at 110 mph, shearing off 15 feet of concrete curbwall and tearing off the left front wheel, then smashing through an eight foot tall buttressed concrete wall…

Sounds plausible I Guess but I wonder how Tesla in this crash description circumvented Sir Isaac Newton’s laws of motion and the bodily damage the driver should have incurred on negative G's.

Re: Tesla Adds Titanium Underbody Shield and Aluminum Deflector Plates to Model S

#153

Post by DEinspanjer »

JohnBooty wrote: post #58

In a sense, Teslas are the least safe cars on the road, because I'd kill every single one of you in order to own one.

If you promise not to kill me, I promise to give you a single 15 minute or 5 mile test drive somewhere in the southern NH area, or possibly in some other area that I happen to road trip through.

Re: Tesla Adds Titanium Underbody Shield and Aluminum Deflector Plates to Model S

#154

Post by johnward »

vermontdevil wrote: post #76
ghshephard wrote: post #13

Are there any other car manufacturers that have similar levels of clearance? I'd be intrigued to see how they perform in the same test scenarios that the Teslas were run against.

The problem is the expectations for other car manufacturers are much lower in terms of safety. So these companies do not try to push the safety envelope any higher. The exception would be Volvo.

Yep. Imagine there are plenty of gasoline cars that have the potential for the gas tank to be punctured, and well that seems like it could turn out much worse. The problem is that electric vehicles are scrutinized to the point that Tesla actually has to defend the one of chance that something punctures the battery pack. A lot of gas tanks are visible under a car with a thin layer of steel protecting them. The straps holding the tank in my Ford truck rusted through. I had the optional off road package that includes a skid plat for the gas tank. Without that plate it certainly would have dropped and I can only guess what might happen. However, that recall got nowhere near the media coverage Tesla gets for anything.

GM left bad ignition switches in the cobalt for something like 8 years. People died when the switched locked up.

Re: Tesla Adds Titanium Underbody Shield and Aluminum Deflector Plates to Model S

#155

Post by srg0 »

Assuming the underbody plate is only 2mm thick, the Model S is suddenly accelerating 5% slower. To put it otherwise, every acceleration now takes at least 4% more energy (> 0.01 kWh for an acceleration from from 0 to 65 mph). Sounds great for city driving.

Re: Tesla Adds Titanium Underbody Shield and Aluminum Deflector Plates to Model S

#156

Post by DEinspanjer »

johnward wrote: post #129
JohnBooty wrote: post #58

In a sense, Teslas are the least safe cars on the road, because I'd kill every single one of you in order to own one.

I would really love to drive a Model S. I'm not sure if all of the Californians on HN realize how special CA is for seeing awesome cars. I saw cars that I never thought I would see in person (in my lifetime) when I was in CA. Not only that but you would see them a handful at a time. I know of 4-5 Model S' in the Pittsburgh area but rarely see exotics.

Check out the teslamotorsclub.com forums, become part of the community, make some friends, crash^H^H^H^H^H drop in on one of their outings or get-togethers. While it isn't every single owner, a surprising number of them are very happy to give detailed tours of their cars and even test drives. In that aspect, it is a very very different population from other luxury or high-performance vehicle owners.

Re: Tesla Adds Titanium Underbody Shield and Aluminum Deflector Plates to Model S

#157

Post by johnward »

squigs25 wrote: post #126
johnward wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" the shields prevented any damage that could cause a fire or penetrate the existing quarter inch of ballistic grade aluminum armor plate that already protects the battery pack" Ballistic grade aluminum armor plate... If there is one thing Tesla does well it is publicity. I know there are high strength steels but it seems like they want something that is strong and light. If it sounds like something impenetrable to t…

exactly my point - this is purely a marketing stunt.

Well the chances of actually penetrating the aluminum shell of the battery pack seem pretty low anyway. They are just answering the media shit storm they get for any little problem with an equally over kill replacement that will lead to media shit storm.

Re: Tesla Adds Titanium Underbody Shield and Aluminum Deflector Plates to Model S

#158

Post by acangiano »

pjc50 wrote: post #102
lkmz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not forget that Tesla recently issued a recall for 29,000 charging adapters because they would overheat and catch on fire. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/automobiles/citing-chargin...

GM is currently recalling 1.6M cars which can accidentally turn off while driving: http://www.thewire.com/business/2014/03/gm-recall-mary-barra... (this has apparently resulted in a number of deaths, as the power steering stops working)

And they were aware of the problem.

Re: Tesla Adds Titanium Underbody Shield and Aluminum Deflector Plates to Model S

#159

Post by _zen »

pistle wrote: post #136

Elon is revealing too much hubris in his messaging. You can treat people around you like that, but lining up too many people against you is foolish. His intent is to PR+burnish the added safety feature. Instead of selling it as an objective demonstration of the leadership tact that Tesla takes in ensuring driver security, he gets passive-aggressive. Instead of laying out a tremendous history of safety as a foundation…

So the first death Tesla ever had will nullify their safety record? Ok.

All the first death will do is have media go nuts, then Musk will make another blog post calling them idiots for making a big deal of 1 death in the history of Tesla, compared to the thousands of every other car manufacturer.

Re: Tesla Adds Titanium Underbody Shield and Aluminum Deflector Plates to Model S

#160

Post by MBCook »

pjc50 wrote: post #102
lkmz wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's not forget that Tesla recently issued a recall for 29,000 charging adapters because they would overheat and catch on fire. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/15/automobiles/citing-chargin...

GM is currently recalling 1.6M cars which can accidentally turn off while driving: http://www.thewire.com/business/2014/03/gm-recall-mary-barra... (this has apparently resulted in a number of deaths, as the power steering stops working)

Not only were they aware of the problem, they did the calculus and decided to release a brand new model knowing this issue effected.

http://consumerist.com/2014/03/25/gm-knew-chevy-cobalt-ignit...

Post reply on HN