21–30 of 130 posts
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…
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…
In a rollover the glass might encounter a sharp point (ala “ninja rocks”) which exerts impact on a very small area causing failure, no? Or is their glass capable of absorbing these impacts?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
and how many model 3s does it take to shatter a metal roof? im not discounting that the claim is impressive, but from a purely safety point of view, wouldnt you expect even more significant forces on this thing in a crash?
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…
Having very strong pillars is pretty much a prerequisite for surviving a rollover in an EV.
Contrast the good results of the overlap tests with the report (posted on HN awhile back) from the Tesla that rear-ended the corner of a firetruck at ~35mph that had substantial firewall deformation. It's worth remembering that modern cars are very highly optimized for the tests they have to pass. I'm not saying the M3 or any specific car is good or bad, just take the results with a grain of salt because these metric…
I don't think the deformation of that crash is what was relevant; rather, it appears that autopilot failed to act correctly in that situation. In terms of the "firewall deformation", from what I understand this is exactly what is supposed to happen in a collision: there is a "crumple zone" [0] in modern cars as a safety feature to absorb impact. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crumple_zone
Edit: Is the firewall is structurally irrelevant in modern cars or is reality not convenient today? The inability for people to disagree without trying to silence each other is why people complain that HN is turning into Reddit.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It can also turn orange in certain conditions: https://www.google.com/search?q=tesla+orange+roof
It is only the front part, and it is due to being polarized glass, which only manifests when the car is wet. I think it is kind of pretty actually (note that I own a Model 3).
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…
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 40mph along the outer edges of the vehicle, like if a passing truck on a local road drifts over the center line.
I get why Tesla gets the flak from analysts, it being a public company; But I rarely see an analyst speak about Tesla's impressive record in building safe cars. Especially when there are car manufacturers who try to hide flaws which can lead to catastrophic malfunction or had been caught with cheat devices for emissions test. Also one more thing which is less talked about is Tesla's autopilot being useful for people…
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 asleep and has his hands off the wheel. So crash safety features take a back page to known dangers of Tesla cars that make Teslas more likely to crash than other vehicles.
Especially when there are car manufacturers who try to hide flaws which can lead to catastrophic malfunction or had been caught with cheat devices for emissions test.
Literally every newspaper and news organization in the US and Europe covered the VW emissions scandal. People went to prison over it. Billions of dollars in fines were paid. The stock price was downgraded by analysts for months. Ford and GM's stock prices are also down significantly despite near-record profits due to missteps in the sedan market. Analysts aren't biased against Tesla, they're biased against any company mis-executing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In a rollover the glass might encounter a sharp point (ala “ninja rocks”) which exerts impact on a very small area causing failure, no? Or is their glass capable of absorbing these impacts?
https://www.iihs.org/ratings/about-our-tests#roof-strength-t...
Metal gives and then fails. Glass gives minimally, and depending on tempering, can fail very, very quickly.
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…
It's marketing speak and isn't supported by anything in the IIHS's actual public announcement on their most recent vehicle safety ratings. Tesla has received flak in the past for misstating the results of IIHS and NHTSA testing.
I get why Tesla gets the flak from analysts, it being a public company; But I rarely see an analyst speak about Tesla's impressive record in building safe cars. Especially when there are car manufacturers who try to hide flaws which can lead to catastrophic malfunction or had been caught with cheat devices for emissions test. Also one more thing which is less talked about is Tesla's autopilot being useful for people…
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…
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?