Tesla Model X Rollover Test

FrgMstr

Just Plain Mean
Staff member
Joined
May 18, 1997
Messages
55,532
You can point out a lot of faults or inadequacies in electric cars (and SUVs), but when it comes to having physics on your side, all those heavy batteries on the bottom of the car, sure do give it a low center of gravity. This is Tesla's internal video of the company testing rollover below. The NHTSA said: “Model X is the first and only SUV to achieve a NHTSA 5-Star safety rating in every category and subcategory, with the lowest probability of rollover and overall injury of any SUV.”

Check out the video.
 
Market realities don't work anymore. My $150k home is now worth $5.5 million, damn honesty! Fire up the printing press!!!!!
 
its a crossover i dont see how it is an suv... so of course it is better with a low center of gravity. isnt it the size of most crossovers?
 
You sure are happy that it didn't roll over when you have the lithium batteries burn under you as heat travels downwards. No, wait...
 
You sure are happy that it didn't roll over when you have the lithium batteries burn under you as heat travels downwards. No, wait...

Well... I am guessing that if the batteries were burning above you that there would be burning/melting other stuff falling down on you.

What we need is an auto-deploy capsule that evacuates all the oxygen out of the surrounding area so it can't burn - oh wait....
 
Electric motor traction response is about a hundred times faster than an ICE engine, add low center of gravity and AWD, and maybe a set of these and it could be a fun off-roading vehicle:



Curious to see further refinement in the future with model Y or a Tesla truck.

Also Bolinger Motors has another interesting concept that's quite appealing, worth a look:

 
Last edited:
That last one almost seemed physics defying. I mean, it was practically on it's roof and just rolled backwards onto all 4s like it was being pulled with a rope.
 
Or hey we could just stop making stupid ass rollover prone SUV's, which is the worst possible vehicle type for 90% of the driving populace. The only reason we have so many SUVs is 1. it's a way around MPG regs for manufacturers and 2. people are colossally stupid. I cringe every time I see some 5'3" person alone in a black Denali/Suburban douchemobile struggling to manage the heft through a parking lot. You don't need that much vehicle.
 
Or hey we could just stop making stupid ass rollover prone SUV's, which is the worst possible vehicle type for 90% of the driving populace. The only reason we have so many SUVs is 1. it's a way around MPG regs for manufacturers and 2. people are colossally stupid. I cringe every time I see some 5'3" person alone in a black Denali/Suburban douchemobile struggling to manage the heft through a parking lot. You don't need that much vehicle.

Having that much vehicle is a safety net for bad drivers.

Ever notice how a lot of large-SUV drivers are older looking moms?
 
Having that much vehicle is a safety net for bad drivers.

Ever notice how a lot of large-SUV drivers are older looking moms?

That isn't because of bad driving. A lot of older looking mom's/guys driving these got them so the family can go on a road trip in one vehicle to somewhere. It's a pain in the butt having to load up 2-3 vehicles to make a road trip to go somewhere an hour away when the loading and unloading takes at least that long. So it makese sense to get that 3 row SUV load 3 generations of family up. (Grandparents, Husband and wife, 2 kids in baby seats.) and go to x location for an afternoon than having to load up 2 or more vehicles for the same trip and deal with... (Oh I had to stop for gas pull over and wait and I needed to do x so wait and oops lost you at the light wait while I get my phone to pull up the GPS and so on and on and on... )

The market segment for these big SUV's is that. (or salespeople needing to transport clients.)
 
That last one almost seemed physics defying. I mean, it was practically on it's roof and just rolled backwards onto all 4s like it was being pulled with a rope.
weebles wobble but they don't fall down, it's the same shit all the weight is below the center of the tires. The frame of the car passengers etc weigh little compared to the battery pack and motors
its a crossover i dont see how it is an suv... so of course it is better with a low center of gravity. isnt it the size of most crossovers?
crossover isn't a real designation they just call suv's crossovers now, it's a marketing term. You notice how suv's aren't really advertised anymore, all "small suvs" are now crossovers just as all large hatchbacks became crossovers etc.
 
In before the "They said it was 'rollover proof', so I built a hot wheels racetrack loop and am suing them for false advertisement" crowd.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DF-1
like this
Electric motor traction response is about a hundred times faster than an ICE engine, add low center of gravity and AWD, and maybe a set of these and it could be a fun off-roading vehicle:



Curious to see further refinement in the future with model Y or a Tesla truck.

Also Bolinger Motors has another interesting concept that's quite appealing, worth a look:

CUTE
131_0902_04_z%2bfebruary_2009_4x4_trucks%2b1991_geo_metro_1994_chevy_blazer.jpg


I thought we might get to see some Tesla model x off road performance in that video. I was deeply disappointed it was just an advertisement about how it looks.
You didn't need to watch the whole video to realize it lacks the clearance level to play.
 
Last edited:
One day they will get the complete package right.

30 years from now ?
 
You sure are happy that it didn't roll over when you have the lithium batteries burn under you as heat travels downwards. No, wait...

Well that didnt take long for the haters to show up.
 
Well that didnt take long for the haters to show up.
Not hating on the tesla, just don't personally think it's suited to offroad use (unless you lift it about 2ft, modify the suspension, and have a beefy skidplate and rollcage...because if people take it off road, they will manage to roll it one way or another).
 
Not hating on the tesla, just don't personally think it's suited to offroad use (unless you lift it about 2ft, modify the suspension, and have a beefy skidplate and rollcage...because if people take it off road, they will manage to roll it one way or another).

Thats why I didnt quote yours ;)
 
Is it normal to do that test on sand? It seems awfully forgiving, and may be a contributing factor as to why it could come back to base every time.
 
Is it normal to do that test on sand? It seems awfully forgiving, and may be a contributing factor as to why it could come back to base every time.
It's more likely to roll on sand than asphalt. The friction drops dramatically once the tires leave the road surface, so the car is less likely to roll at that point. Whereas on sand it piles up in front of the wheel/tires, increasing the resistance to horizontal movement, but inertia will keep pushing the car forward and pivot on the center of mass.
 
Well that didnt take long for the haters to show up.
Didn't take long for the fanbois to show up.

EVs are impractical and proven to be a great fire hazard in accidents (and afterwards if not properly neutralized).
 
What's its rating for burning uncontrollably if one of the batteries is punctured?
 
Didn't take long for the fanbois to show up.

EVs are impractical and proven to be a great fire hazard in accidents (and afterwards if not properly neutralized).

Are you aware that "fanbois" is a personal attack and not a valid argument? That specific spelling has connotations to it that I surely hope you didnt intend.

Secondly I gave no argument that supports your assertion other than I was pointing out you had no real valid concern given the thread subject.
 
Didn't take long for the fanbois to show up.

EVs are impractical and proven to be a great fire hazard in accidents (and afterwards if not properly neutralized).

Fuel tanks used to explode (Ford Pinto), engines used to fall out (Chevrolet), tires used to blowout randomly (Firestone), and a dozen other design flaws that killed or maimed people have shown up over the history of the automobile. None of those are indictment of the automobile, or even a type of automobile. To try to indict EVs because a portion of the vehicle requires further improvement seems a bit dramatic. To try and say EVs are impractical ignores the fact there are places like Tokyo, New York, and Singapore, among others, where an EV is not only well-suited, but the perfect vehicle for improving air quality and reducing noise pollution.

Do EVs need to improve? Sure. Do we need to learn more about their risks? Absolutely. Are they the most dangerous, impractical vehicle on the road? Not by a longshot.
 
Are you aware that "fanbois" is a personal attack and not a valid argument? That specific spelling has connotations to it that I surely hope you didnt intend.

Secondly I gave no argument that supports your assertion other than I was pointing out you had no real valid concern given the thread subject.

Are you aware that 'hater' is a personal attack and not a valid argument? That specific spelling has connotations to it that I surely hope you didn't intend.

Secondly your argument about my assertion was not valid given the recent statistics of post-crash catastrophic fires of EV vehicles.
 
Fuel tanks used to explode (Ford Pinto), engines used to fall out (Chevrolet), tires used to blowout randomly (Firestone), and a dozen other design flaws that killed or maimed people have shown up over the history of the automobile. None of those are indictment of the automobile, or even a type of automobile. To try to indict EVs because a portion of the vehicle requires further improvement seems a bit dramatic. To try and say EVs are impractical ignores the fact there are places like Tokyo, New York, and Singapore, among others, where an EV is not only well-suited, but the perfect vehicle for improving air quality and reducing noise pollution.

Do EVs need to improve? Sure. Do we need to learn more about their risks? Absolutely. Are they the most dangerous, impractical vehicle on the road? Not by a longshot.

The statistic percentage of EVs schorching trumps the percentage of IC cars by orders of magnitude.
 
The statistic percentage of EVs schorching trumps the percentage of IC cars by orders of magnitude.

It's the other way around.

http://www.businessinsider.com/17-cars-catch-on-fire-every-hour-in-the-us-2013-11

About 17 cars catch fire every hour in the United States....Americans drive about 3 trillion miles per year according to the Department of Transportation. That equates to 1 vehicle fire for every 20 million miles driven, compared to 1 fire in over 100 million miles for Tesla.

https://insideevs.com/op-ed-top-10-causes-of-automobile-fires-ev-vs-ice/

When comparing collisions only, EVs are safer 30-3 or 10-1, yet collisions are only responsible for a third of the fires. In general, the public and media has dismissed the other two thirds causes for fire in an automobile. They have dismissed the fact that fuel systems are still the number one cause of fires and this will never be the case for the BEV. In fact, 4 of HSW’s top 5 causes for fire including (fluid spills, overheating engines, and catalytic converters) will never be the cause of a fire in a BEV.
 
Last edited:
neat.. got to see a small suv/crossover type vehicle lying on its roof on the way in this morning. it did NOT roll back over like the tesla
 
Are you aware that 'hater' is a personal attack and not a valid argument? That specific spelling has connotations to it that I surely hope you didn't intend.

Secondly your argument about my assertion was not valid given the recent statistics of post-crash catastrophic fires of EV vehicles.

It does not and I did intend it in the general sense. It was not personal as yours was. But welcome to my block list.
 
Or hey we could just stop making stupid ass rollover prone SUV's, which is the worst possible vehicle type for 90% of the driving populace. The only reason we have so many SUVs is 1. it's a way around MPG regs for manufacturers and 2. people are colossally stupid. I cringe every time I see some 5'3" person alone in a black Denali/Suburban douchemobile struggling to manage the heft through a parking lot. You don't need that much vehicle.
How can you possibly know how much vehicle anybody needs except for yourself? And why should you care if someone buys more vehicle than they need anyways?
 
Back
Top