Model 3 Achieves the Lowest Probability of Injury of Any Vehicle Ever Tested by NHTSA

Discussion in 'HardForum Tech News' started by Megalith, Oct 14, 2018.

  1. Megalith

    Megalith 24-bit/48kHz Staff Member

    Messages:
    13,004
    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2006
    According to the NHTSA, you’re less likely to die in a Tesla Model 3: the agency ran the vehicle through its new car assessment program, which comprises “crash tests used to calculate the likelihood of serious bodily injury for front, side, and rollover crashes,” and the results were very favorable. This is a nice complement to the perfect 5-star safety rating the car achieved last month.

    In addition to its near 50/50 weight distribution, Model 3 was also designed with an extremely low polar moment of inertia, which means that its heaviest components are located closer to the car’s center of gravity. Even though Model 3 has no engine, its performance is similar to what’s described as a “mid-engine car” due to its centered battery pack (the heaviest component of the car) and the fact that Model 3’s rear motor is placed slightly in front of the rear axle rather than behind it.
     
    TechLarry and John721 like this.
  2. emphy

    emphy Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    206
    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2016
    That is: less likely to die when an accident occurs. However, the increased amount of these cars on the road means it is more likely that you die in a tesla model 3.

    To be fair; it probably still will be the case that you'll be less likely to die in a car thanks to the increased proportion of this model on the road.
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2018
  3. Randall Stephens

    Randall Stephens Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    448
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    The greatest safety device gets installed behind the wheel before every drive. That said, I'd take an f150 over this for safety. Im not dumb enough to get into one car accidents, so if something hits me I'll take something with some inertia vs this.
     
    F.E.A.R. likes this.
  4. seanreisk

    seanreisk Gawd

    Messages:
    895
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2011
    Ouch, ouch, algebra brain freeze... The original statement is, 'you're less likely to die in a Tesla Model 3', the conditional statement being that you are 'in' a Tesla Model 3, and since there is only '1' of you to be 'in' a Model 3, the number of Model 3's on the road is irrelevant.


    P.S. Disclaimer - Tesla / SpaceX fan boy. You could argue that Tesla's paint schemes are ugly or you don't like Elon Musk's haircut, I'll happily argue with you.

    P.P.S. His hair is beautiful.
     
    travisty, Vercinaigh and TMCM like this.
  5. NKD

    NKD [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,631
    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2007
    Respect your argument. But you be surprised how safe these cars are. Model S amazing too at safety. They are as good as they get for safety in a sedan.
     
    Vercinaigh and Wierdo like this.
  6. Randall Stephens

    Randall Stephens Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    448
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    I hear what you are saying. It seems most things are doing really well with the small offset stuff and side impact and that's good, but in a sedan you're pushing a rock up hill vs CUVs or pickups.
     
  7. emphy

    emphy Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    206
    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2016
    Has nothing to do with algebra, it depends on how you parse the sentence:

    you are less likely to die [when you are] "in a tesla model 3"

    or

    you are less likely to "die in a tesla model three"

    I chose the (imo) more humorous option of the statement being non-conditional.

    P.S. Elon Musk really needs a change in haircut; hair fashion could do with a bit of his shaking things up there ^_^
     
    Last edited: Oct 14, 2018
    seanreisk likes this.
  8. Wierdo

    Wierdo [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,776
    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2011
    It's more a function of mass and design features than strictly sedan vs pickup designation.

    For example the Model S is quite heavy, and the battery skateboard on the bottom provide a measure of security that's not available in any other ICE cars, it's a feature specific to skateboard EV design.

    https://cleantechnica.com/2017/02/1...ollision-new-pics-details-first-hand-account/

    Tesla-Model-S-tractor-trailer-2.jpg
    vs
    Semi-Truck-vs-Tesla-Model-S-accident.jpg
     
    TechLarry, Trimlock, Armenius and 5 others like this.
  9. seanreisk

    seanreisk Gawd

    Messages:
    895
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2011
    Oooooooh, that took me awhile. My powers of pedantic anal-retentality have failed me!

    But the halo is a nice touch.

    elonhalo.jpg
     
  10. chris7191

    chris7191 n00b

    Messages:
    62
    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2018
    The Tesla won't rollover though. I have seen a number of accidents where SUVs and pickups overturned and that outcome usually isn't as good.
     
  11. aaronspink

    aaronspink [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    2,030
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    Which would make sense if it was still the 70s, but the reality is that modern cars are designed to much stricter safety standards than trucks and traditional SUVs. Likewise, if I had to choose, I'd rather be in an F1 car wrecking at 100 mph than any passenger vehicle in a 40-50 mph wreck.
     
  12. DukenukemX

    DukenukemX [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    4,394
    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    But Elon Musk smokes pot and Tesla is going bankrupt and more negative commentary.
     
  13. travisty

    travisty Gawd

    Messages:
    815
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2016
    The weight distribution is horrible for trucks in general and is laughable when compared to the model 3. In icy conditions you'll need to add extra weight in back to make sure the back tires keep traction otherwise you'll be fishtailing. CoG is also much higher so take a corner too fast/sharp and you'll do a barrel-role. Also no autopilot so the f150 is stuck with unsafe human driving.
     
  14. Randall Stephens

    Randall Stephens Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    448
    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2017
    Ask that dead guy how safe the computer driving was. You can't. In head-on collisions, the heavier vehicle wins. Its occupants may be injured, but I've seen the affect G-forces have in ripping human aortas from hearts.

    https://electrek.co/2018/07/15/tesla-model-3-rollover-crash/

    note it was a woman driver..........
     
  15. SLee

    SLee Gawd

    Messages:
    955
    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2002
    Armenius likes this.
  16. MADNOD

    MADNOD [H]Lite

    Messages:
    95
    Joined:
    Jan 30, 2005
    well not having an engine or a transmission in front helps alot with frontal accidents, as usually the engine block and gear are heavy and made of strong metals. i know that most the cars nowaday are designed so the engine and the gear slide under the car in case of an accident, but still they are chunky blocks.
     
  17. kju1

    kju1 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,032
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    The increased number of GM vehicles on the road means its more likely that you die in a GM vehicle.
     
    Armenius likes this.
  18. *sighs* It's about how hard you stop and how well the car releases the energy once it's hit without compromising the safety cage. G Forces induce internal injury. Anything above 12g's (117.6m/s*s) is generally bad. The Air Force conducted these experiments to determine how hard they could eject a pilot. After 12g's things start breaking.

    With a big nose assuming you can use all that crumple space: nose length = 1/2 a t * t. So: (2* nose length) / (t * t) = a

    Well if you head long into a Semi, you will experience much greater g-forces than if you hit a Fiesta due to conversation of momentum. m1v1 = m2v2. Basic high school physics. And physics are a @#$%#!% to overcome.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 15, 2018
  19. kju1

    kju1 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,032
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    If I had to chose Id take the 40-50mph wreck. Way less than half the energy invovled in that wreck and I stand a better chance of walking away. 100mph wrecks are energy intensive and those guys often have the injuries to prove it.
     
  20. True story. Kenetic Energy = 1/2m*v*v.
     
    Wrecked Em likes this.
  21. travisty

    travisty Gawd

    Messages:
    815
    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2016
    The base f150 is the same weight as the model 3

    Read the report, the lane divider basically acted like a ramp. Every vehicle would have flipped in that case. The amazing thing is the model 3 kept its form and its occupent safe

     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
  22. VirtualMirage

    VirtualMirage Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    169
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Here's some curb weight numbers for you:
    2018 Ford F-150: 4,069 to 5,016 lbs (from 2-door small bed up to supercrew short bed to long bed. Excludes diesel and Raptor.)
    Tesla Model 3: 3,838 to 4,072 lbs
    Tesla Model S: 4,647 to 4,941 lbs
    Tesla Model X: 5,185 to 5,531 lbs

    The weight/inertia advantage you are claiming the F-150 has over the Tesla's is little to none. Add to that the superior crumple zones and body reinforcements along with the lower center of gravity, I'd say the Tesla's will give your truck a run for its money when it comes to a collision.

    This, of course, is assuming the truck bed isn't loaded. But a loaded bed can be very disadvantageous to the truck driver as well, even if it does give it more weight/inertia. I have seen way too many trucks with the cabs crushed or where they are nearly split in half from their accidents, especially those that were loaded.

    The diesel and Raptor weren't included for a few reasons. Both are more limited in availiability and neither can be found in all configuration options. As such, neither are a good representative of what you will most likely find on the road. But just so you know, the diesel option ranges from 5,055lbs up to 5,320lbs, with all additional weight be attributed to just the drivetrain. The Raptor is almost a totally different model altogether despite carrying the F-150 name. It's the heaviest of them all, ranging from 5,525lbs up to 5,697lbs.
     
    aaronspink and Wierdo like this.
  23. Most of your weight comes from the batteries, not actual structure.
     
  24. Seventyfive

    Seventyfive [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,346
    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2004
    I want more real world crash testing. For example, right now IIHS only hits the side impact at 31mph. I know 3 people who have been hit at 50+ mph in just the last year. If something does well at 50mph we know it will be fine at 31. But if everyone passes at 31mph, how do we know what is good or not?
     
  25. VirtualMirage

    VirtualMirage Limp Gawd

    Messages:
    169
    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Which the overall structure was designed around. And the structure that the batteries are contained in is very strong as well, which adds to the strength of the car overall. It also heavily accounts for the low center of gravity, so it has its advantages. Furthermore, the batteries only account for roughly 1/4 of the total weight of the model 3. The batteries, which I believe includes the tray/housing they are stored in, tips the scales at 1,054 lbs. I read elsewhere that the just the batteries themselves comes in at just shy of 800lbs (4 modules, two of them weight 191 lbs each and the other two weighing 207lbs each).

    What about the drivetrain, battery, and all other enginebay accessories of the truck? Are you going to say that doesn't count? None of those attribute to the safety of the vehicle, they only add weight.
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
    aaronspink and Wierdo like this.
  26. aaronspink

    aaronspink [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    2,030
    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2004
    An F1 (or other purpose designed racing car) has much better energy dissipation than any normally available road car.
     
  27. kju1

    kju1 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,032
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    Your mark 1 human body isnt.
     
  28. Jagger100

    Jagger100 [H]ardness Supreme

    Messages:
    7,471
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Now if only most accidents were hitting a brick wall at a perfect 90 degs.
     
  29. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,248
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    Lol, that is the absolutely wrong thing to do. If you care about your safety, you want to stay as far away from anything with a rigid truck frame as you possibly can. Crumple zones are the miracle that saves modern lives in accidents, and they are a lot less effective in anything with a rigid truck frame.

    Without good crumple zones it is the sudden deceleration (or acceleration if hit when standing still) that does the most damage.

    I'd much rather be in a well designed modern mid sized sedan than any pickup truck or SUV in case of an accident.

    And that's before we even start talking about rollover risk:
    CrasxhCA.gif

    That truck never saw it coming before doing summersaults.

    The whole "greater mass above all for safety" argument falls apart the moment you go beyond high school level conservation of momentum physics.

    1.) Even the best safest driver can be taken out by someone else, thus it always makes sense to drive the safest most capable vehicle you can, even if you have confidence in your own driving (which if we are honest, most who claim they do, shouldn't)

    2.) Greater mass may help, but nowhere near as much as a lower center of gravity and good crumple zones. It's usually the people in the car that sacrificed itself for them and is totaled who walk away from accidents without a scratch. Passengers in the tanks with only a scratch on the bumper are the ones who wind up getting killed or have life long debilitating injuries.

    Second to probably only the seat belt, good unibody designs with crumple zones are by far the most important safety design of all time. Air bags sound great and do help, but are probably a distant third.

    By driving a truck, not only are you making yourself and your passengers less safe, but you are also putting those around you in greater danger should an accident occur, as more mass definitely does more damage to others. (Accidents are not a winner vs loser thing, doing more damage to others does not mean you have less damage done to you)

    120384841_o.jpg


    Our monkey brains struggle with making rational decisions though, so despite the data on this being firmly on the side of trucks being less safe, we FEEL safer when in a larger taller vehicle, and feelings affect purchasing decisions more than facts do, this the runaway trend of truck sales.

    Just like some cat feeling safer sitting in a cardboard box...
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2018
  30. Rollover is a separate risk from energy absorbing crunch zones. One of the reasons I picked up a Taurus was it was 4175 pounds built on volvo's largest frames. It also had a relatively low rollover risk as a Sedan
     
  31. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,248
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    Yeah, very large heavy unibody sedans are probably the safest vehicles you can drive, provided they don't sacrifice active safety (handling/crash avoidance) too much by their weight.

    After all, the best accident is the one you are never in.

    Personally I have an AWD Volvo S80 T6. Not quite as heavy as yours, but close at 4,016lb.

    Thing is, while I benefit slightly from the weight, I'd be almost as safe in something slightly lighter and more nimble. And Id get better milage too. Even with my mostly highway miles, I seem to average 21mpg with this thing.

    If I had known milage was going to be so poor I would have just gone with the V8 version. :p

    And yes, rollover is a separate risk, but the design choices tend to go hand. If someone chooses a truck for the mass, they are also getting the rollover risk.
     
    Deleted member 93354 likes this.
  32. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,248
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000

    When designing a safe vehicle, the goal is ultimately to minimize passenger compartment intrusion (on other words, make passenger cage very rigid) while at the same time maximizing energy absorbtion through crumpling. It's a tricky formula to get right, because you don't want the crumple zones to be too flimsy (in which case they don't absorb as much, and allow the impact force through to the cabin) yet you also don't want them to be too rigid, or they also don't absorb as much energy.

    The ideal design allows the crumple zones to crumple as much as possible, but to have absorbed all the energy of the crash by the time it reaches the passenger cage. Tricky part is, different types of collisions at different speeds have differing amounts of energy. I'd imagine during design they go through a serious amount of computer based finite element analysis simulations to get the balance just right, before even a single crash test is performed.

    At the same time as you are trying to get this balance right, you also want it to be low to the ground (for handling and stability) but not too low to the ground (or other vehicles overrun your bumpers in case of an accident) You also want as close to perfect 50-50 front rear weight bias as possible, to help you stay on the road when things get hairy, etc. etc.

    Pickup trucks are the worst possible combination here. They are tall (bad from the perspective of stability and handling) tend to have most of their weight on the front wheels (also terrible for stability and handling) have rigid frames (terrible for crumple zones). The only benefit they have is that they tend to be heavy, but the mass benefit probably works more against them than it helps though, due to the poor handling dynamics and longer stopping distances.

    Tesla's "skateboard" design you mention is probably a mixed blessing. It is great from the standpoint of crating a rigid design with a low center of mass that ought to handle well, but if done poorly the battery could act just like the rigid frame in a pickup truck and not allow for the crumple zones to do their job.

    I'm guessing Tesla has designed them with the battery sufficiently low, such that it is below the main area of impact, and thus the crumple zones can do their job.

    Or they don't extend the battery all the way to the front and back, and thus allow it to lend it's strength to the passenger compartment, without detracting from the front and rear crumple zones...
     
  33. babochee

    babochee Gawd

    Messages:
    598
    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2008
    Yeah but I have an F-450 so...
     
  34. cdr_74_premium

    cdr_74_premium [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,579
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    Considering the GM vehicle in question didn't die first.

    Official Redneck Seal of Approval!

    Are you even American? If so, did you get the memo? You're not a real man if you're not burning gas unnecessarily just because you may, or may not, who cares, one day, or some, need to tow something probably not even that heavy and/or big. But that's absolutely a reasonable excuse to get a heavy big tank to roam around, because fuck yeah!

    Buy a econobox and just rent the damn tank when you need it done, right? Wrong, you faggot!

    :D
     
  35. kju1

    kju1 2[H]4U

    Messages:
    3,032
    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2002
    You missed the point entirely.
     
  36. Zarathustra[H]

    Zarathustra[H] Official Forum Curmudgeon

    Messages:
    28,248
    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2000
    It's not like they took a normal unibody car frame and bolted a battery to it though.

    The batteries are an integral part of the unibody frame, lending it lots of rigidity. From a structural standpoint, the battery thus becomes actual structure.
     
  37. cdr_74_premium

    cdr_74_premium [H]ard|Gawd

    Messages:
    1,579
    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2010
    No, you did. =D
     
  38. TechLarry

    TechLarry Can't find the G Spot

    Messages:
    30,125
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
    images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT5BSJ_tEEFxj3aYMm0YJoA8ywgq2id_Wzny8_srNQDNuFkvS6oAQ.jpg
     
  39. TechLarry

    TechLarry Can't find the G Spot

    Messages:
    30,125
    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2005
  40. YeuEmMaiMai

    YeuEmMaiMai [H]ardForum Junkie

    Messages:
    14,617
    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2004
    regardless they will crush you in between them like there is no tomorrow...