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

51–60 of 130 posts

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

#51

Post by ajross »

gamblor956 wrote: post #27
Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #10

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…

> make Teslas more likely to crash than other vehicles

Citation needed. Which other vehicles? Tesla's overall safety record is quite good. Every car has things it does well and things it does badly, and every other manufacturer gets judged on the safety record on balance.

I mean, do you regularly post on HN about, I dunno, Toyota's safety record given the high center of gravity of its SUV offerings that make them "more likely to roll over than other vehicles" and claim that "crash safety features take a back page" to that problem?

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

#52

Post by djaychela »

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…

Sorry, I don't think you're right here.

Modern cars feature considerably more features (both in the bodyshell and in terms of active safety systems) which protect both passengers and pedestrians.

It's simply untrue to say we reached peak safety 20 years ago and everything else has just been pointless window dressing.

I buy and sell cars as a side gig, and newer cars (last 10 years or so) are far better equipped to deal with accidents - they have higher waistlines, better active safety features (airbags, stability systems, seatbelt pre-tensioners, lane assist, better-performing ABS systems), and the bodyshells have features such as side impact bars and larger crumple zones.

I recently bought a Fiat Seicento as a stop-gap. It was really old-school - light, small, nippy (even with a 55 bhp engine) and great fun to drive. But it was tragically weak and definitely not safe if you had an accident - as backed up by Euro NCAP's assessment of the seicento. Cars like that and the original mini are not something I'd like to have an accident in. (For reference, I did 10 years of gravel rally driving, so I've had a few knocks).

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

#53

Post by thenewwazoo »

lucb1e wrote: post #35
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.

Weight, a force in lbs, is not the same as g-force (m/s^2), which is an acceleration. You can't directly compare the two without knowing the time over which the acceleration occurs (and even then you only get an average force over time).

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

#54

Post by justapassenger »

Abishek_Muthian wrote: post #50
justapassenger wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also one more thing which is less talked about is Tesla's autopilot being useful for people with disabilities although Tesla hasn't added any specific features for people with disabilities AFAIK. Autopilot isn't solution for disabilities. If you aren't able to drive car without AP, you cannot drive one with AP - you have to be able to intervene and take over at any point of AP operation. Don't get people killed by…

I said autopilot is useful for people with disabilities and also added Tesla hasn't added any feature for disability assist. I didn't imply disabled should go buy a Tesla. Diability can be of various nature, affecting accessbility in various manner. Iam myself disabled, Tesla is not available in my country; I hope to drive one when available and so I keep track of experience of disabled people with Tesla. That said y…

AP is a convenience package - it makes car easier to use, in best case scenario. In worst case - it's harder - you need to take over and correct behavior to avoid crash.

I feel you, but don't put your life in hands of a convenience package.

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

#55

Post by thibran »

> "Vehicles with alternative powertrains have come into their own," IIHS Chief Research Officer David Zuby says. "There's no need to trade away safety for a lower carbon footprint when choosing a vehicle."

I would guess this is not the real reason. EV's have a much bigger crumple zone and can therefor absorb more energy. Since "nobody" wants to hear that EV's are saver than combustion engine cars, lets put them into another category...

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

#56

Post by helpPeople »

gamblor956 wrote: post #29
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…

Note: this quote is from Tesla, not the IIHS. 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.

Some people seem more accepting of misinformation than others.

The whole Mars thing + no 30k electric car after all these years have me immune.

Tesla and musk are simply not trustworthy.

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

#57

Post by Tade0 »

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…

I drive a 2017 Toyota Auris and (still) own a 00' Corolla.

The difference in the level of safety between these two is patently obvious.

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

#58

Post by ak217 »

djaychela wrote: post #52
baybal2 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Sorry, I don't think you're right here. Modern cars feature considerably more features (both in the bodyshell and in terms of active safety systems) which protect both passengers and pedestrians. It's simply untrue to say we reached peak safety 20 years ago and everything else has just been pointless window dressing. I buy and sell cars as a side gig, and newer cars (last 10 years or so) are far better equipped to de…

Great points. I'm not sure how baybal2 arrived at their conclusion. To add to your list, newer cars have NHTSA/IIHS-advised brake assist and obstacle detection, more and better airbags, seat belt load limiters, better use of high-grade structural steel and adhesives in critical joints, and wider tires for better traction.

Most of the safety improvements are only very mildly correlated with the weight increases. Of course the safety features add weight, but comparable cars and compact SUVs have grown by at most 10-20% in weight over the past two decades. Most of the weight increase on the road is from pickup trucks (which don't satisfy many of these safety criteria and are bought mostly by people who don't care as much about safety) or people insisting on buying bigger vehicles.

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

#59

Post by Judgmentality »

kwhitefoot wrote: post #42
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…

> known dangers of Tesla cars that make Teslas more likely to crash than other vehicles Do you have any stats on this?

https://medium.com/@MidwesternHedgi/teslas-driver-fatality-r...

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

#60

Post by DuskStar »

baybal2 wrote: post #41
moduspol wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Suzuki Mehran dry mass is around 550kg, and it's made of steel, not aluminium. A more spacious Alto that uses some aluminium and magnesium is around 650kg. Talking about "not-so-heavy" cars...

> Suzuki Mehran dry mass is around 550kg

That's a Pakistan-only car with no safety features [0]. (From the Wikipedia description, "a car with everything manually operated, and with no safety features. The car lacks airbags, ABS, rear window defogger, side air conditioner vents, seat belt reminder and even rear seat belts.") So yes, it's light. You'll also immediately die in a collision, but you get what you pay for I suppose. (The Alto is sold more broadly, but it's still obsolete)

Not exactly comparing like to like.

0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_Mehran

Post reply on HN