Tesla Model X Is First SUV to Achieve 5-Star Crash Rating in Every Category | Hacker News Reader

Tesla Model X Is First SUV to Achieve 5-Star Crash Rating in Every Category

tesla.com

182 pointsgk157 comments

I know Tesla likes to tout a best in class crash rating. It just isn't true for the Model S.

The Model S gets a "A" for acceptable on the front small overlap test from the IIHS. The highest grade is a "G".

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/tesla/model-s-4-d...

Photo caption from your link. "The seat belt allowed far too much forward movement of the dummy to the extent that its head hit the steering wheel hard through the airbag."

I imagine this could be tweaked in future builds and corrected?

For those interested, here's a list of the Top Safety Picks for 2017 (and older) http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/TSP-List

Didn't see Tesla on any of the lists for the current year, or past years.

But how does that relate? Best in class is not necessarily highest possible.

Also I have read the reliability of the X was a nightmare. Any progress on that with running changes?

Numerous automobiles in "Luxury Cars" category have ratings higher than that of the Model S. This includes the following: BMW 5 Series, Audi A6, Hyundai Genesis, Volvo S90, Acura RLX.

The list of top safety picks of 2017 as rated by the IIHS is here: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/TSP-List

The article (which I'm sure you read) is not about IIHS testing. It's about NHTSA testing. Also, I believe that Tesla planned on tweaking the car for this IIHS issue.

Also, it's about a different car

Still relevant since Tesla claims the Model X is the safest car after the Model S, but other crash test show that the Model S also has its flaws.

If you compare the images of the Model S on:

Small overlap front: http://www.iihs.org/frontend/iihs/ratings/images/api-rating-...

Moderate overlap front: http://www.iihs.org/frontend/iihs/ratings/images/api-rating-...

You can clearly see a difference where the structural integrity of the door area begins to fail.

Compare that to the BMW 5 series in small overlap front: http://www.iihs.org/frontend/iihs/ratings/images/api-rating-...

There doesn't appear to be any structural damage to the door area.

Tesla optimizes for NHTSA testing, which doesn't test a lot of very high end vehicles.

Tesla fares more poorly in the more difficult IIHS and EuroCAP tests, which actually test high end vehicles frequently.

But nothing stops Elon from bragging about how this makes the Model X the safest car blah blah.

NSTHA and IIHS have different ways of rating cars. The best would be to top the leaderboards for both agencies, but Model S being first place and Model X being second place ain't no easy task though. Tesla has since addressed the issue since that test, so whenever they have another Tesla to test, it will reflect in that score.

I'm wondering if anyone knows a link to the leaderboard that Tesla mentions that the S and the X are the top two vehicles

Was the Model X not tested and rated previously? It has been out for a while now.

I assumed any vehicle in the US had to be rated by these safety agencies before it could be sold.

They have to buy the cars from open market like everybody else.

If manufacturers provide cars, they'll reinforce everything lol

Great question, I was under the same assumption.

NHTSA testing, unlike IIHS tests, doesn't test hitting a pedestrian as I understand. That should be part of the test.

They must have trouble recruiting volunteers.

This is a great result for Tesla and shows the benefits of an electric SUV. Though it would be interesting to see results from Euro NCAP and IIHS as well, as the Model X has yet to be tested by either.

The vehicle in the image on the article does not look like an SUV, from a size perspective. Are there NTSB qualifications that designates something a "car" vs "SUV"?

I think they call it a crossover, which is kind of a car / SUV hybrid.

Model X is 198″ L x 82″ W x 66″ H. A BMW x5 looks more like an SUV and is 192″ L x 76″ W x 69″ H so the BMW x5 is -6"L, -10"W, +3"H. (Or consider the 2009 Mercedes-Benz G-Class which very much looks like an SUV, but is again only 184″ L x 71-72″ W x 76″ H. https://www.cars.com/research/mercedes_benz-g_class-2009/)

For comparison a BMW 3 series is 182"L x 71.3"W x 56.3"H So it's -16 inches L, -10 inches W, -10 inches height.

82" is very wide for a vehicle in the US.

Even the Ford Excursion, one of the most gargantuan SUVs ever produced, was only 80" wide: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Excursion

I imagine parking a Model X is a challenge.

Shouldn't it be able to park itself...?

AFAIK that feature is just now about to be added in the next update. I don't know how well it works.

No, they just added the ability to auto-park unattended in a perpendicular spot. From launch, it was able to park itself without an occupant by driving straight into a spot head or tail first. With the driver still sitting in the car, it can parallel park as well as perpendicular park. Those parking features work fine, but I am looking forward to the unattended perpendicular parking as it is the most common parking scenario.

82" is not particularly wide - the Excursion was huge because it was long, not wide (it was a Ford SuperDuty pickup turned in to an SUV). The Jeep Grand Cherokee is 85" wide, the Explorer is 79", and to throw a minivan in to the mix, a Honda Odyssey is 80" wide.

Except it's rumored Tesla is working a Model Y crossover

No, they call it an SUV which it is. Crossovers are typically smaller with much lower towing capacity than the Model X.

Tesla calls it an SUV, but other people call it a crossover: ex: https://cars.usnews.com/cars-trucks/tesla/model-x

  Rankings
  #1 in Luxury Midsize SUVs
  #1 in Luxury SUVs with 3 Rows
  #2 in Luxury Crossover SUVs

Huh? Have you seen a model X? Are you making assumption of the vehicle's size from a single image lacking reference points?

Rest assured, it is indeed a picture of the model X SUV

I've seen them, driven them, etc. I have plenty of friends that own them. They are very different from the average SUV in shape, etc.

Nobody would ever confuse them for any other SUV.

Does this still make them SUV's? I guess technically?

How are they different? All crossovers are designed to resemble SUVs. If you are only focusing on the exterior look n' feel, you are missing the point.

If other SUV makers wanted to make aerodynamic vehicles, they'd look like Model X. Still, if you see a Model X parked next to a normal car, it looks like an SUV to me.

Most people i've talked to think they are "amorphous blobs"

I see tons of them parked next to normal cars and SUVs, and to me, they look like night and day :)

Like, if you showed 1000 random people them, and asked them to identify the type of car, i'm pretty sure you wouldn't get a super-high percentage of "SUV"

But this is all just conjecture :)

Shape is not what defines SUVs

agreed...That looks like a crossover, not a proper SUV. When I think SUV, I think about a Toyota 4Runner.

It doesn't matter. If you look at the IIHS categories, it doesn't make a distinction between crossover and SUV.

http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings

The distinction between Crossover and SUV are mostly marketing and some technical differences. Mostly, the underpinning of a crossover is a unibody platform, whereas SUVs are generally body on frame. However that technical distinction is also marketing driven.

Yep. And a lot of SUVs these days are not really SUVs in the traditional sense. The thing about the Tesla that gets me is that you can't even really put a roof rack on it because of the doors. Which for a lot of people I know (including myself) who drive SUVs would be a complete showstopper.

I always assumed the frunk was way more useful than a roofrack

Bikes, skies, canoe and so on. All stuff you can put on a roof rack, but not in the frunk.

There are probably ways to mount bikes or skis in the back. (The bike rack on my SUV is actually in the back--which has pros and cons.) But I need a boat rack and there's no way around that. Plus the odd pieces of lumber, etc.

More than anything, an up right vehicle with a hatchback is likely slotted into the SUV category.

The utility of the roof for carrying cargo is not a factor for determining private passenger vehicle category.

Worth mentioning that that the Model X is longer and wider than a 4Runner. The 4Runner is taller though.

These things are all over the place in San Francisco, and are definitely SUV size

I remember having to rent a "minivan" in Ireland to transport my friend's harp. It wasn't too much larger than a lot of US "hatchbacks." (But it was still a bit harrowing for me to drive it on those country roads.)

I can't recall the exact numbers, but it has to do with the amount of storage volume with the rear seats up vs. down.

That's how Chrysler "hacked" CAFE -- they tweaked the size of the PT Cruiser such that it was counted as an SUV. That then allowed them to sell a boatload of higher margin trucks without having to pay the gas guzzler tax.

You're thinking of the EPA car classification, which is defined for the purposes of comparing fuel economy amongst similar vehicles. It is one of many vehicle classification systems in use by the US government, but it does not apply to the NHTSA.

No - National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (15 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) places the responsibility for classifying a particular vehicle in the first instance on the vehicle's manufacturer. The NHTSA follows that model, and while technically they could disagree with a manufacturer and over-rule them for the purposes of safety testing, I don't believe that happens very often if at all.

For the record, from a 'size perspective', the Model X is much bigger in person than it looks in photos, and fits well in to the cohort of vehicles calling themselves SUVs.

The Model X is most certainly an SUV from a size perspective.

You're confusing its shape for its size. Likely it's slopped rear hatch vs the vertical rear hatch of that gives the box shape you associate with SUVs.

For the record SUV stands for Sport Utility Vehicle and thought there's not really one set of characteristics or definition for them, their utility is typically the thing that defines them. This might include things like passenger and cargo capacity, off road capability like ground clearance and 4wd, on road capabilities like towing capacity, etc.

what about Euroncap ratings? It looks like the NHTSA only does occupant safety while the european system does pedestrian and safety for other cars.

> the european system does pedestrian and safety for other cars.

I had no idea this difference existed. That's really interesting!

before briefly working at a car maker, I was completely oblivious too. But there we had those crazy discutions about hitting pedestrians without breaking their legs, and designing the hood to receive them with less injury, and bumper height that would be more or less the same for many cars.

here is an extract from a euroncap test (Volvo S90->pedestrian->Comments): "The S90 has an 'active' bonnet. Sensors in the bumper detect when a pedestrian has been hit and actuators raise the bonnet to provide greater clearance to rigid structures in the engine bay. Volvo showed that the system deployed for a variety of pedestrian statures and over a broad range of speeds. Accordingly, the system was tested with the bonnet in the raised (deployed) position. Protection against head injury was almost entirely good. The protection provided by the bumper to pedestrians' legs was good for all test locations and maximum points were scored. However, protection of the pelvis was poor at nearly all test locations."

It's nice that Tesla makes an SUV, and it's nice that it has achieved this rating, but I'm also of the opinion that this vehicle is an SUV in name only.

I'd love to someday own a capable off-road 4wd electric vehicle - but this one doesn't seem like it. Such a vehicle would have to be able to handle at least a moderate to mid-moderate vehicle rated (3 - 3.5) trail:

http://www.dirtopia.com/wiki/4WD_Trail_Rating#3._Moderate

This vehicle doesn't seem to have the ground clearance to do so; whether it could be safely modified (lifted) is questionable. While given enough time and money you can lift any vehicle, there are practical limits. Plus - in the case of an electric vehicle - you also have weight limits (to lift a vehicle you'll likely be adding longer springs, shocks, plus other components to allow for the increased wheel travel - that all adds up to more weight, meaning fewer miles per charge). There's also the question of underbody armor to prevent intrusion into the battery areas (similar to skid-plates for drive-train components in a regular off-road vehicle, you'll want to prevent damage to the batteries as well in an electric - which again means more weight).

Will this kind of vehicle satisfy the crowd that wants to drive something big and (seemingly) capable, but isn't willing to own a minivan or station wagon - to ferry kids and groceries between parks, school, home, and mall? Sure.

But it likely won't be safe to take it off-road on a 4-wheeling adventure trip (it'd probably be ok for most graded dirt roads, though - so for basic camping trips).

I think I'm going to be waiting a while still for my hypothetical vehicle. Right now, the biggest limit (as always) is the batteries (unless you want to trailer it to the trail) - because of the weight vs range issue. What it may take is a complete rethinking and redesign of what an off-road vehicle means or needs. Probably more lightweight but strong composite components, or maybe something even more exotic - unless the battery technology improves (ie - if the stuff we've seen in labs becomes consumer-friendly and practical to manufacture). Hopefully, though, with those changes also comes ways for recovery in the event of broken parts on the trail (today if you break an axle or drive component, you at least have the possibility to repair it on-the-trail without necessarily needing to carry replacement parts, using a welder or other means - though some people -do- carry such components as well, which might become the norm for electric off-roading).

Also mud & water. If you drive through deep water with a conventional car, worst thing that can happen is you hydrolock the engine. Don't want to think what happens when you try to cross a shallow river in an electric...

Well, if the voltage is low enough, not much. 24 volts, which IIRC is what the Tesla runs at, won't do too much interesting in anything but really salty water. Any high voltage coils, though, might not fare as well.

Worth a try, though. Anyone with a Tesla want to give it a go? I've got a few rivers nearby...

The battery voltage on a Tesla model S is 375 V [1]. The motor(s) supposedly run at 365 V AC.

If you think about it a bit it would be hard to get the stated 300+KW using a 24V motor in a car as it would take conductors which can cope with a current of 12500 A. The P90D has a stated total power of 568KW, giving 23667 A. The thing would glow in the dark...

[1] https://forums.tesla.com/forum/forums/technical-battery-disc...

It would have wires as thick as a tree.

Fair enough. And yeah, the conductors would be a big problem at low voltage with that kind of amperage.

Probably would not fare well in water then. Still up for the test...

Don't know if you saw this, but a team entered a mildly-modified Leaf in the Mongol Rally http://www.thedrive.com/watch-this/9704/watch-this-nissan-le...

It's not rock crawling or even the famed Rubicon Trail (Jeeps "Trail Rated" trail) but it's an interesting endeavor.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com