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

71–80 of 130 posts

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

#71

Post by ChickeNES »

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…

Your claim isn't backed up by the data: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motor_vehicle_fatality_rate_in...

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

#72

Post by bradlys »

moduspol wrote: post #70
bradlys wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's more of a "relative" to certain cars. I could compare it to a miata that is ~2300lbs. But that's not really relevant then, is it? A Jeep Wrangler is basically a truck - so I don't think that's a good comparison. Compared to other "compact executive cars" (as its class states) it's close to the competition.

Well, I mention it only because I get the comment a lot and my last car was a (two door) Wrangler. You could compare it to trucks, but it's just not perceived as a particularly heavy vehicle even relative to normal cars. The vibe I've got from talking to people is that they think the Model 3 (or Teslas in general) are significantly heavy relative to normal consumer vehicles. It's pretty surprising to them that even a…

I think most people would be surprised just at how heavy a Jeep Wrangler is to begin with. Without even comparison, most of the 2-doors don't look like they'd be that heavy.

Same with my 1-series. It's obscenely heavy for how small it is.

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

#73

Post by moduspol »

bradlys wrote: post #72
moduspol wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I mention it only because I get the comment a lot and my last car was a (two door) Wrangler. You could compare it to trucks, but it's just not perceived as a particularly heavy vehicle even relative to normal cars. The vibe I've got from talking to people is that they think the Model 3 (or Teslas in general) are significantly heavy relative to normal consumer vehicles. It's pretty surprising to them that even a…

I think most people would be surprised just at how heavy a Jeep Wrangler is to begin with. Without even comparison, most of the 2-doors don't look like they'd be that heavy. Same with my 1-series. It's obscenely heavy for how small it is.

Yep. Exactly my point, although honestly it didn't occur to me that the weight of the Wrangler might be an outlier.

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

#74

Post by prolepunk »

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…

I think the quote mischaracterizes static and dynamic load.

Yes, the roof can hold 5 teslas stack one on top of the other, but this doesn't tell you much.

More practical knowledge would be at what speed the car will fall on the roof before the roof collapses? 50km/h 70km/h 100km/h?

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

#75

Post by lovehashbrowns »

baybal2 wrote: post #31
ProfessorLayton wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mo…

> 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.

Where are you getting this data from?

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

#76

Post by heimatau »

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…

I agree with your thought process but you also have to realize that overtime issues can arise. It would be difficult to say 'look at how safe they are' when in months or years later issues can come at their doorstep. I think analysts don't want that on their record.

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

#77

Post by baybal2 »

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…

I stand my position here.

While accident rates fell all across the world significantly with advance of road safety science, and active safety, no question there, but the lethality of car to car collisions has been rising, with most of rise happening in developed countries

The increase in average car weight is the biggest contributor to lethality of vehicle to vehicle collision.

https://www.nber.org/digest/nov11/w17170.html and https://academic.oup.com/epirev/article/34/1/57/493339

> being hit by a vehicle that is 1,000 pounds heavier results in a 47% increase in the baseline fatality probability.

In three decades, the weight of a family car went from under 1 tonne to close to 1.6, with big thanks to SUV overtaking sedan as a default "family car."

And increase in car resistance to mechanical deformation no longer plays a big role when G forces overtake blunt and compression trauma. And there is nothing one can do about them when crumple zones and the "deceleration track" are already maxed out.

The last few car fatalities I saw were all about that: 2 cars seemingly intact besides the front, but both flung violently 10m meters off the road, and people dead without much signs of external trauma. The energy absorption capacity of crumple zones did not save them.

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

#78

Post by MFogleman »

hanniabu wrote: post #44
mc32 wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I also suspect this isn't a real world value because if you find yourself in an upside down car, chances are it's because you were in an accident. This means the vehicle likely acquired some damage and therefore would likely have a compromised support structure for the glass.

Rollover crashes are generally pretty safe assuming the roof doesn't collapse and squish you to death, and you are wearing your seatbelt. The energy dissipates without you suddenly coming to a stop like if you hit a tree. Most of the damage will be from broken windows/debris causing cuts/scratches.

If you are not wearing a seatbelt, you run the risk of being ejected from the vehicle, and the higher risk of being 'partially ejected' from the vehicle, which is often worse.

I personally observed only 1 vehicle where the roof caved in on rollover (I believe it was a mid 2000s mustang). If the driver had been a few inches taller, I imagine he would've been hurt pretty badly.

The only other time I saw a roof collapse in wasn't from a roll over, but striking a tree roof first at a high rate of speed.

The only rollover crash I ever observed that the driver couldn't walk away from was a rather fortunate partial ejection. The vehicle only rolled onto its side, pinning the drivers arm between the road and the door as it slid for a few dozen yards.

The durability of the laminated safety glass should not be understated. A fire department's extraction team's approach is likely to be "cut through the glass with a circular saw".

Granted, all of this is anecdotal, with a very small sample size. Either way, wear your seat belt.

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

#79

Post by roland35 »

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…

The glass may be strong but it is probably not "tough" in a material science sense. Metals and plastics can absorb more force and impact without fracturing which is probably what you want in a crash: http://www-materials.eng.cam.ac.uk/mpsite/properties/non-IE/...

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

#80

Post by SilasX »

SEJeff wrote: post #66
eatbitseveryday wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please do not use code formatting for quotes. It creates a terribly long unbroken side-scrollable box. > 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 tha…

upvoting you for this. I thought it would break it into a block, and was wrong.

Wow, and seeing how the post appeared after submitting didn't convince you otherwise?
Post reply on HN