Crash Tests Raise Questions about Safety of Tesla Model S

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
A new set of crash tests by the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS) contests Tesla's claim that the Model S is the safest car in history, being that the car has now found itself at the bottom of the list in the large cars group. According to the IIHS, the car did not do well in its small frontal overlap test (which simulates hitting a utility pole or tree) and the left front wheel saw extreme intrusion. Tesla has fired back, reiterating the five-star safety rating given by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.

...the Model S still cannot earn the highest score of “Good” on the important small frontal overlap test IIHS conducts. This test simulates a vehicle hitting a utility pole, tree, or an oncoming car with just a portion of the front corner. The test was added in 2012 and is the most difficult on which to score a “good” rating. Still, most new cars do earn that rating, but Tesla has struggled to find a way for the Model S to match its peers. In the first test, the dummy’s head and torso moved too far forward. The dummy’s head then hit the steering wheel hard.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, that's trouble. Maybe the airbag isn't wide enough or not shaped right?
 
panhead said:
Airbag isn't going to help with this;
"left front wheel saw extreme intrusion"

This is a structural issue.
Click to expand...

I had just noticed the dummy's head and where it went in the collision. If you watch that part, the dummy's head slides off the side of the airbag and nearly hits the door by the rear view mirror. Maybe the seatbelt doesn't work as it should?

but, yeah, that wheel thing also needs a lot of fixing. I've read how many engineers consider that to be the most difficult thing to do in car design.
 
I think Tesla is great, that said, I am not sure what there is for them to argue here. The video shows everything that went wrong. How can they they dispute that evidence?

Perhaps they do not believe the small overlap test is valid for a real life accident. It is clear the car does not do well against the competition.
 
not sure how this simulates a tree or rounded object, it's more like a hitting a semi test.
 
no shit it's not going to do well hitting a pole, there isn't a cast iron or aluminum engine block in the way to obsorb hitting the pole.. the car does exactly what it's suppose to do and crumbles around the impact and nothing enters the cab of the vehicle. same technology F1, indycar, sports car racing, and nascar build their vehicles to do on impact. i'm sure theres some validity to this test but just that single clip makes it seem ridiculously stupid.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
no shit it's not going to do well hitting a pole, there isn't a cast iron or aluminum engine block in the way to obsorb hitting the pole.. the car does exactly what it's suppose to do and crumbles around the impact and nothing enters the cab of the vehicle. same technology F1, indycar, sports car racing, and nascar build their vehicles to do on impact. i'm sure theres some validity to this test but just that single clip makes it seem ridiculously stupid.
Click to expand...

In this, "exactly as it's supposed to do" results in a much worse outcome than people have come to expect from the typical vehicle in this size class.

Maybe a sticker saying "You are much more likely to be seriously injured or killed, but that's ok because it's the result of not having a conventional engine." is needed here to keep the consumer informed.
 
What am I missing here it rates as acceptable on just the small overlap front?

The best you can get is good and the other options are moderate then poor. Did I miss something cause overall it still seems to be the safest car you could buy....not that I could ever get one until it's a used 10 year old one. I get that they consider that type a crash in 25% of injury accidents but overall pretty amazing combined with all the other types of possible crashes.
 
That very specific crash test is a pretty big deal in the automotive world there was a push awhile back address that form of crash because it is a leading cause of fatalities.
 
munkle said:
I suggest you google "car hits pole" or "car hits tree" and click images. Seems pretty similar to me. You hit a tree, the tree is probably going to win.
Click to expand...
I suggest you google pole and tree and look at the shape of them and then look at the front of a semi. Hitting a flat surface vs hitting a curved surface will change the crash quite drastically.
 
Semantics said:
That very specific crash test is a pretty big deal in the automotive world there was a push awhile back address that form of crash because it is a leading cause of fatalities.
Click to expand...

I got 25% cause of falsities or injuries, but it got "acceptable" and shines in all other regards I think. I'm just wondering, and I have no proof, but it feels like someone's trying to nock these new type of cars for some reason. Let's embrace the new tech

Ps didn't mean to drag you into my confusion✌
 
panhead said:
Airbag isn't going to help with this;
"left front wheel saw extreme intrusion"

This is a structural issue.
Click to expand...

Exactly, want to see it done right? See Volvo and Subaru small overlap test. Volvo amazes me, I'd drive one if I could afford it.



Blows my mind, how the entire vehicle manages to shift itself away from the overlap so that it never comes to an actual stop and instead sort of slides right past it..
 
shad0w4life said:
I suggest you google pole and tree and look at the shape of them and then look at the front of a semi. Hitting a flat surface vs hitting a curved surface will change the crash quite drastically.
Click to expand...
Might I suggest that you want your car to perform well in all the crash tests.
 
Ocellaris said:
Yes the IIHS is trying to knock the car for having a higher chance of occupant injury.
Click to expand...
I was referring to how the media perpetuates the results in that comment I made . Not the validity of the test, yes safer is better, obviously.
 
sirmonkey1985 said:
no shit it's not going to do well hitting a pole, there isn't a cast iron or aluminum engine block in the way to obsorb hitting the pole.. the car does exactly what it's suppose to do and crumbles around the impact and nothing enters the cab of the vehicle. same technology F1, indycar, sports car racing, and nascar build their vehicles to do on impact. i'm sure theres some validity to this test but just that single clip makes it seem ridiculously stupid.
Click to expand...
Except not every vehicle that performs just like those even has an engine in the front that has anything to do with absorbing an impact. In fact, those vehicles are generally built fairly differently in the sense that in a hard enough collision the entire vehicle basically falls apart with the exception of a heavy duty rollcage/tub that the occupants are in, which is not how most consumer vehicles are built at all. It doesn't matter how stupid it seems, if other manufacturers can keep the wheels from getting shoved through the legs of the driver, then Tesla can do the same with their engineering. Even if the IIHS testing is slightly different from the NHTSA testing, the simple fact is that any vehicle on the road, especially one I'm ever possibly going to be in... I'd prefer pass all crash testing with flying colors.
 
I think the bigger issue is Tesla's response to this. This would have been a non-starter if Tesla hadn't issued their statement. Plenty of other cars have shown room for improvement, plenty of other auto makers improved their designs... Tesla chose to act like it's some sort of conspiracy and the government tests are the only ones that are accurate.
 
sboucher said:
Exactly, want to see it done right? See Volvo and Subaru small overlap test. Volvo amazes me, I'd drive one if I could afford it.



Blows my mind, how the entire vehicle manages to shift itself away from the overlap so that it never comes to an actual stop and instead sort of slides right past it..
Click to expand...

Jesus. That volvo was like "fuck you, I'm out!"

EDIT: They should provide a description of what the car SHOULD do in that test. Before I watched the Volvo video, other than the wheel intruding into the cabin I didn't know what was wrong. Now that I see cars *SHOULD* skip off like the Volvo, it makes the Tesla crash look that much worse.

EDIT 2: Well...this is concerning.

"acceptable"
 
capt_cope said:
I think the bigger issue is Tesla's response to this. This would have been a non-starter if Tesla hadn't issued their statement. Plenty of other cars have shown room for improvement, plenty of other auto makers improved their designs... Tesla chose to act like it's some sort of conspiracy and the government tests are the only ones that are accurate.
Click to expand...

It's a classic automotive gaff - they design to specific tests. Every company does this. I worked for one of the big 3 for a couple years and I could tell you about the software side where we had specific calibrations for shift points in the transmission to pass Mexico City's noise test (shifting gears just before the microphone to lower decibels). So when someone does a different test and their car fails, they get butt hurt.

The IIHS is real good at finding these gaps:
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/desktopnews/first-results-of-new-crash-tests-most-car-bumpers-dont-work-in-low-speed-crashes-3-cars-sustain-$4-500-damage-in-6-mph-test-while-old-ford-escort-sustains-little-damage
 
OEM said:
EDIT: They should provide a description of what the car SHOULD do in that test. Before I watched the Volvo video, other than the wheel intruding into the cabin I didn't know what was wrong. Now that I see cars *SHOULD* skip off like the Volvo, it makes the Tesla crash look that much worse
Click to expand...
  1. Don't crush/impale occupants (wheel intrusion violates this one)
  2. Restrain with seatbelts and airbags to prevent head/neck injuries
  3. Maximize length of deceleration during wreck for occupants to reduce G's on occupants (car pretty much stops immediately so full force of impact is imparted on front of vehicle and occupants)
 
capt_cope said:
I think the bigger issue is Tesla's response to this. This would have been a non-starter if Tesla hadn't issued their statement. Plenty of other cars have shown room for improvement, plenty of other auto makers improved their designs... Tesla chose to act like it's some sort of conspiracy and the government tests are the only ones that are accurate.
Click to expand...


I had a slightly different response. I saw every news/gossip site spelling doom and gloom for this new car. I clicked and saw no burning babies just a new car that overall performed very well. I haven't read their stament though. It still a damn safe car. Ultimate safest Car i think I'd go with a Volvo, that's what their known for.

Reading tesla response hoping no egg on face lol
 
ecmaster76 said:
  1. Don't crush/impale occupants (wheel intrusion violates this one)
  2. Restrain with seatbelts and airbags to prevent head/neck injuries
  3. Maximize length of deceleration during wreck for occupants to reduce G's on occupants (car pretty much stops immediately so full force of impact is imparted on front of vehicle and occupants)
Click to expand...
Perhaps I should have put show us what the "optimal" result would be. Perhaps referencing the best performing car in the segment for an idea.
 
I know this is a commercial from Subaru but it does illustrate how to handle a crash test :p

 
shad0w4life said:
I suggest you google pole and tree and look at the shape of them and then look at the front of a semi. Hitting a flat surface vs hitting a curved surface will change the crash quite drastically.
Click to expand...

Watch the video, they are hitting a section that is similar to a tree or pole, they aren't hitting the whole thing. Pretty sure they know that as well since they did the testing and say thats what it simulates. I'll trust them over random person with 435 posts on hard forum. Also if you've ever looked at a semi that small portion they are hitting near the edge is just wheel and hood and some bumper, there isn't much meat on the edge of a semi. https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/z/gre...ean-big-rig-to-check-performance-60871319.jpg

A pole or tree is going to rock you harder than the semi if you are barely just hitting it on the corner.
 
I dont know about you but i can't imagine buying a car based on crash tests, i buy a car based on looks/performance/handling, if a car is a death trap but has everything else i'll still buy it.
 
gxp500 said:
I dont know about you but i can't imagine buying a car based on crash tests, i buy a car based on looks/performance/handling, if a car is a death trap but has everything else i'll still buy it.
Click to expand...

Budget is the starting point, user reviews narrow the field, MPG/Performance numbers cut it down, and crash test rating decide which models I'm going to test drive and pick from.
 
Jeremy C said:
It's a classic automotive gaff - they design to specific tests. Every company does this.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If you watch the Volvo video someone linked above, it's pretty obvious they designed the car to do well in that test specifically. Not saying it's not safer but that it's not necessarily universally safer in such collisions - and we all know car companies are willing to go the "extra mile" to look like they're meeting certain standards. As an engineering student in college I studied this phenomenon all the time...I suppose you could call it "ad hoc" design.
 
sboucher said:
Exactly, want to see it done right? See Volvo and Subaru small overlap test. Volvo amazes me, I'd drive one if I could afford it.
Blows my mind, how the entire vehicle manages to shift itself away from the overlap so that it never comes to an actual stop and instead sort of slides right past it..
Click to expand...
When you walk away with nary a bruise you immediately walk into the Volvo Dealership and buy another one.
 
Jim Kim said:
Might I suggest that you want your car to perform well in all the crash tests.
Click to expand...
I never said anything about this test shouldn't be counted . I said how does this count as a cylindrical object collision test with the object having a flat face mixed in, much like a semi. If i knew a car failed a semi /large vehicle collision test I'd be a lot more concerned as they are a huge cause of accidents here.
 
Last edited:
AWD and crash safety is why I choose my car. Those are two very important things to me...
 
I really could not care less about the crash test data of any Tesla Model anything since I will never be able to afford one.

Edit: Oh, and the Dart is by far one of the safest vehicles ever built in recent memory.
 
I'm glad they decided to make a show of this now that the Model 3 is just about to release...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top