Model 3 achieves the lowest probability of injury of any car tested by NHTS | Hacker News Reader

Model 3 achieves the lowest probability of injury of any car tested by NHTS

tesla.com

322 pointssahin185 comments

Tesla is a young car company - yet they’re punching above their weight so easily. I’m aware of the safety benefits inherent in the skateboard-battery chassis design but that doesn’t account for all of the safety accolades they’ve received. Why aren’t the other automakers doing as well in the NHTSA tests as Tesla?

Cynically I’d suppose the incumbents are heavily optimised to maximise shareholder value so vehicle safety might actually be reduced to maximise profit given expected liability from damages (Fight Club comes to mind) while Tesla is still idealistic and expends a certain amount of profitability for absolute safety. Is this really the case or is there a better explanation for it?

They are increasing their brand value by these safety ratings, As a new company, this increases the long term value for the shareholders.

When you are breaking into an industry or trying to position yourself you need to hit above your weight. I remember when Volvo made their move, they went for the safety angle as well. Tesla has always been dogged by members of the industry and instead of turning to marketing speak Tesla turned to established and trusted entities to show their cars true value. Now it can be claimed by getting into the gritty details as they did in their blog they are entering the realm of marketing speak. (disclaimer, I own a 3).

With regards to why aren't all other manufacturers doing as well, just glancing through the web site of the NHTSA I cannot figure out how they decide what to test. In their current list of vehicles to test I do not even see Tesla so I will assume manufacturers can submit cars independently of being requested by the NHTSA.

Now when comparing cars at https://www.nhtsa.gov/ratings we only get stars which four is pretty common in the price range but you can compare and find cars that have the same star rating. Volvo's tend to still get 5 stars across the board

Here is a test report: https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/2018/TESLA/MODEL%2525203/4%252...

As it wrotes, probability of injury, its beyond the stars rating. They provide technical reports on the site, which you can download. These are more detailed results, where injuries also measured and explained, like Head Injury Criterion. Just curious and checked other manufacturer, and see "worse" results. But also realized reading these documents that these tests are depend on many factors...

They are not selling for a loss. Analysts predict the $35k model will sell at a loss but all currently selling models generate a marginal profit.

>When you give away cars for a loss, its easy.

That's quite an illogical statement.

1) If they were giving it away, that would be normal to make a loss. Giving away has to be free, isn't it?

2) If that was easy, why aren't the profitable cars not safer? Tesla has far less money to spend (and to profit, in your view) on the Model 3 than their competitors. Also, the Model 3 is a mid-sized premium model: why aren't the competitors most high-end vehicles not safer? There's nothing easy to make the safest vehicles among all cars sold in the US, irrespective of loss and profit.

3) Will you review your comment after Tesla release its Q3 financial reports? Because if they are actually making a profit on the Model 3 while ramping up production, I'm curious to hear your opinion when Fremont is at 10K unit/week and the Shanghai factory starts producing Model 3 (by 2020).

They can probably achieve this because they are a young company. "Generational" companies has a tendency to fall into a "best known practices" void. Usually these best practices have some sort of merit behind them. Either technically (to minimize risk or keep existing process) or economically (existing tooling or manufacturing plants). The red tape can be hard to break through even if you're an engineer that knows of a way to make the chassis safer.

If there is one thing western, read US, European, Japanese and Korean, car makers don't compromise it is safety. They might cheat (some of them are real frauds) on emissions. Safety on the other hand is simply to important and to thoroughly conzrolled for that. There is post on thus thread explainingvthe mechanical design side of things pretty well.

Are you unaware of the Takata airbag scandal?

Counter point: Tesla's bursting to flames. ;-)

Takata was a scandal, even more so as it was Japanese supplier. I just hope we don't use exceptions to the rule in general discussion now, are we?

Counter point: Every car bursting into flames

Yeah, but Takata was a pretty major "exception" -- it resulted in the biggest safety recall in American history Even though all of its other competitors gave up on using cheap ammonium nitrate because of its inherent instability, Takata pushed forward, as if they had some magical engineering solution. This decision required years of deliberate delusion and coverup and denial of evidence. It was not just some blunder that was tragically overlooked.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2016-06-02/sixty-mil...

I wish I shared this naive outlook on life. Everything in manufacturing is a compromise. Just because the up-and-coming Chinese and Indian car manufacturers aren't as big on safety as the "Western" world doesn't mean that our car companies don't cheat at it and cut corners all the time. We just had a much bigger head start at it.

The first time soneone called me naive, I'll just take it as a compliment. I think the big difference is what we define as cheating. Optimising towards test, no cheating in my POV. Using one type of steel, as an example, for crash test and something different for production -> cheating.

They do have to make trade-offs, true. But every other company has to do that as well, some tend to one side others favor different characteristics. Tesla, to stay on topic, is no exception there. SOmeone else discribed the test philosophy and the impact on car design very well.

"I think the big difference is what we define as cheating. Optimising towards test, no cheating in my POV. Using one type of steel, as an example, for crash test and something different for production -> cheating."

Is it still cheating if there is a loophole that allows that substitution of steel?

Very interessting edge case. Legally no. Personnaly I would say no as well, morally it would be absolutely unexceptable. But then the loop-hole is the issue and not the use of it, right? Same goes for the Toyota example montioned above. The optimized for an existing test, fair enough. Testing changed, so Toyota has to adopt (if they didn't already). Again not really cheating.

I think that normal people internalize a multi-layered context of ethical rules. Following the letter of the law is only one layer. Hence most people would not say "fair enough" just because regulations were followed, if the meta-rules of society were not. I don't think it is possible to do away with meta-rules by writing more detailed laws, although I get the impression that is an increasingly popular assumption. In my opinion, the ubiquity of computers leads to an overestimation of our capability for directly handling complexity in rule-based systems.

Hm just a few days ago there's news about Subaru admits to falsifying data directly related to car safety:

http://www.thedrive.com/news/23955/subaru-admits-to-falsifyi...

That is some hard stuff. Thanks for calling it out, I wasn't aware of that.

You are overly trusting.

Toyota was caught overoptimizing for crash tests recently. They designed their Sienna minivan for small overlap driver's side impacts, but didn't reinforce the passenger side because there wasn't previously a test for that. Now there is. Oops.

"While Toyota has modified the structure of the vehicle to improve driver-side protection starting with 2015 models, the automaker did not make the same changes to the passenger side"

https://jalopnik.com/the-toyota-sienna-bombed-the-toughest-p...

I'm not suggesting Toyota is the only one who designs their cars to precisely pass the tests, either. If Toyota does it, I think it's almost certain other major manufacturers take a similar approach. Volvo has a reputation for being more holistic, but who knows if it's deserved? But any major manufacturer can optimize for crash testing, and it's more economically efficient than going the extra mile, which means it's likely that's just what they do.

Small overlap drivers side collision is basically a partial head on collision on a two lane road?

Seems like the drivers side is far more likely to encounter that sort of collision.

I don't have statistics, but what if a person is driving along a street with parked cars and someone pulls out such that the impact is on the right corner instead? That seems like a plausible scenario.

Or a car is unexpectedly stopped in the right lane because of an accident or a police stop. I came around a corner with no visibility today to find a police car attending to a wrecked vehicle on the right.

First, The energy of a head on collision is twice that of a perpendicular collision. (+-, depends on mass and such). This also applies to car -> stationary car.

Second, one of the basic rules of the road is that you have to be able to stop within your sight distance.

Driver side offsets were a bad type of collision, and they were particularly bad in older body on frame cars before that sort of testing, and when there were a lot of 2 and three lane roads.

I've posted this atrocity [0] before, but it is on point here. This is an offset crash test between the same segment Nissan sold in the US vs the one sold in Mexico. Draw your own conclusions about "car makers don't compromise on safety".

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=85OysZ_4lp0

Tyler Durden in Fight Club lays our how big companies do sometimes approach these things: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fight_Club

But also by being later to the game, they have the benefit of seeing the scores of every other vehicle and ensuring they exceed in each dimension by some measurable quantity.

Not much different than "world's fastest" claims...just find the current fastest car and exceed it by something measurable.

> I’m aware of the safety benefits inherent in the skateboard-battery chassis design but that doesn’t account for all of the safety accolades they’ve received. Why aren’t the other automakers doing as well in the NHTSA tests as Tesla?

Factor #1 is the battery. It's far and above the biggest safety feature. Factor #2 is that nobody else makes electric cars as big as Tesla. The Model 3 is 9" longer than a Leaf and a full 21" longer than a Bolt. That means WAY more crumple zone -the crumple zone is the first thing to go in a small car, making room for legs- and that's the biggest safety difference between cars.

I think you're also underestimating the impact of the battery. The center of mass makes it practically impossible to roll, a huge source of injuries and deaths. It's also incredibly resistant to pole and many vehicle intrusions, since those happen either on or just above the battery, which is extremely strong compared to normal cars.

The battery also lets almost the entire front and back of a Tesla be used as a crumple zone. Nobody else is really doing this. The Bolt has the second best battery among EVs for sale currently, and it's still shaped and positioned pretty much like a gas tank. It blocks a lot of crumple zone. The engine in any normal car is totally incompressible and massively limits the crumpling- worse, the higher end, larger cars will still have correspondingly larger engines, limiting safety. They might have a foot or two of crumple distance, while the entire hood of a Tesla can absorb impact. Even the motor can snap up and back if needed.

In a Tesla, you automatically combine 3x the shock absorption with an extremely strong safety cell and the strongest anti-rollover feature of any car. It's zero surprise they do incredibly well in crash tests.

Ben Evans is good on the issues of "Does tesla have a real moat, or are they just first, and so will get steamrollered by incumbents when they catch up."

He posits the question that what is it Tesla does differently that might be a moat - and your answer to the question indicates they might just have something

So Evan's main argument seems to be, Tesla is a bit like Apple in that they make a highly restricted set of products, but all their component parts are hyper-specific to the product, meaning they go to town on integration - there are no factory line compromises to be made between product X and a batch of a thousand product Y tomorrow.

Your answer suggests that using an existing factory line to build your electric cars seems a good idea, but then all you can do is replace the space where the fuel tank goes with the space where the battery goes. That means they lose out on a "free" safety upgrade of putting the battery in the middle of the car.

So Tesla's approach - can it be mimicked by incumbents - sure - by those willing to throw away their existing factory capital and reinvest.

And it does make the idea of "the org chart of the car company is seen in its dashboard" as even more important - if the ideal position of the battery is compromised by the current factory investment, what else in the way car companies are organised is sub-optimal in a new world?

You fail to realize two things. 1) car compabies are retooling already every couple of years with each model change. They are good at that, that's what they do. Due to scale it seems that it takes longer, but given the headaches Tesla had with the Model 3 the effect is not as big. 2) EV are actually a lot easier to build than ICE powered cars. So the only thing that held incumbents back was low expectations on the sales volume. And that is changing.

This also explains to large degree the momentum these compabies have once the move. And don't even talk about first time pass yield for the Model 3 compared to other companies out there.

EDIT: Typos

How does the sales organization at your dealer sell the model of the future without trash-talking all the other gas-guzzling vehicles in the lot? How do you convince a dealer dependent on the revenue from servicing those engines to go against their self interest and sell something without that revenue stream?

sales people have no problem with cognitive dissonance, they do it all day for thousands of years now.

The question is not their ethics, it is whether their bosses would let them do it.

I agree with your line of thinking. They are absolutely married to that ball-and-chain for whatever amount of time it takes them to go all out.

It seems like the thing that helped American auto makers "bounce back" after things went extremely south before 2010 is also their biggest Achilles heel outside of being inherently gas-based vehicles: their choice to create entire lines of cars that's profitability hinged on the interchangeability and cross-model compatible frames and parts is also the reason they can't simply "re-tool" or redesign any of their models without completely scrapping the ideas and starting from scratch.

In a sense I almost feel like if these car companies decide to do as much they may have to entirely scrap previous car models and start anew. Imagine Ford saying goodbye to the F-150 / general truck models, the Mustangs, the Explorers. Chevy and Dodge saying goodbye to the cars and trucks they are able to sell to law enforcement, military, and government.

I really can't. Maybe I'm oversimplifying things but from my outside, rookie POV it seems like these are huge reasons due to the fact that their entire manufacturing supply line is reliant on this model that's helped them all but die off in competition to foreign auto makers.

Ford is scrapping selling cars in the American market. Only the Mustang and some Focus crossover variant will be sold. Maybe they are planning to come back with pure electric vehicles sold only at dealerships they own under a different sub-brand? Sort of like Saturn. One could hope that a legacy car company could take such a radical departure from their previous sales strategy, but who knows. It might even be illegal for Ford to open up their own dealerships for an all-electric brand near existing ones.

> Maybe they are planning to come back with pure electric vehicles sold only at dealerships they own under a different sub-brand? Sort of like Saturn.

They're betting their entire North American future on light trucks and SUVs.

That is what it looks like and what all the PR says. Definitely where their current profit margins are. I am just hoping that a company with such a long history of making great vehicles can make the transition to electric cars. This might be a possible pathway.

They tried but didn't get much market traction. They had the flex vehicles that could take different fuel mixtures, and they had a few hybrid cars, and eventually some battery cars but they were nothing compared to a tesla, and against leaf and volt never seem to get much market traction. The ford family person who lead the company tried a little bit but they could never seem to overcome the existing investment and exiting investment in designing ice cars.

> car compabies are retooling already every couple of years with each model change

They're putting new nests in existing machines. The fundamentals are largely unchanged. Yeah, the dies in the presses for forming body panels change shape. But they are still made the same way. And, for example, the shape of the engine mounts are not compatible from one year to the next...but the vehicles all have engine mounts.

Just a guess, but you are no mechnical engineer, are you? Once you change your dies, your castings and all these things you end up with completely new set-up. The only things that didn't change are the presses (even that is a stretch due to aging and increased performance of new machines) and the fact that you have a steel mfoundry and a steel mill somewhere.

Changing the form of engine mounts or getting rid of them all together is in effect the same thing and purely driven by design. In fact, getting rid of engine mounts makes production a lot faster and cheaper. So yeah, retooling in that regard means re-tooling. They will loose some benfits from their plattform strategies, but that is the main reason most EVs from traditional car makers are, as of now, based on existing plattform. Given a positive business case new plattforms will be developed soon enough, if need be. And EVs can still benefit from other common parts.

EDIT: The exption to the plattform usage is BMW, they went the opposite way. Also to develop knowledge on the use of composite materials that can be used in oter model lines. So yes, there are some generalizations in my post one can find counter examples to.

It's more complex than that. If you have the same basic shape then you can more or less use the same basic process to move that shape through the assemble line. Swapping out a fuel tank for a battery happened because it really is much cheaper for them to keep 90% of the process unchanged.

Not really. As soon as you change the dimensions, not the shape, of a pressed or forged or cast part you need new tooling. That is during production.

During assembly the dimension of a particular beam don't matter that much. The fact that this beam has to moved through an assembly line does. Once you remove that beam assembly is getting a lot easier.

You are right regarding swapping a fuel tank for a battery. But that was before they went to re-tooling assembly lines for EV vehicles. So it is easoer to run both cars through the same, specialized line. But that is the whole point, isn't it? Once these manufacturers did the re-tooling that doesn't matter anymore. And as soon as number go up even existing plattform are not that important as the are now.

> During assembly the dimension of a particular beam don't matter that much. The fact that this beam has to moved through an assembly line does.

You're right, I'm not an ME. I'm a controls engineer...and it's the same software, controls, and 90% of the machine that run your different tools for different years.

But the quoted sentence is the important one. You can change the shape of a beam...but that beam is there in your process because you assume that there's no structural battery pack to take the load instead, or that there is a huge, heavy, rigid engine block under the hood that needs to be accomodated. If you changes those assumptions you would need more than new tools to go on the current presses and robots and conveyors, you'd need a whole new process.

I have installed brand new machines less than a mile south of Greenfield Village at the Ford Product Development Center, where they're willing to spend millions on new equipment to develop new products but not really thinking about building new processes.

A bit of propaganda, sure, but "Big Auto can't stop bellyaching about the 'burden' of electric vehicles".. has made me somewhat rethink how quickly traditional automakers will be able to catch up.

https://evannex.com/blogs/news/excuses-excuses-big-auto-can-...

the ability to Retool is not the point - it's will the organisation let you make the big choices during that retooling. The battery position is a good one, because so much then flows from it - but an even better example is the Tesla dashboard - there is a big shiny screen in the middle and it is where everything comes together- previously software was divided and conquered - the software for the brake system and the software for the lights were written by third part suppliers.

but now if you want that integrated glass screen, you put software division and that new CTO just hired from AmaGooSoft, right at the top of the tree - want your lights susystemn to have screen real estate - talk nice to the new guy. If you think the other division heads will take the new guy lying down, I have a bridge to sell you.

The point being that it's easier sometimes to let Schumpter destroy a company with the wrong PoV and let the market raise a couple of others with the right pov. After POV is worth 20'IQ points.

They dont retool all that much. Plastics and panels, mainly. The Tesla approach is materially different in pretty substantial ways. Using the battery as a structural member means that before its glued in the frame must be handled more delicately. The drive unit mounts are totally different and potentially require almost the whole suspension to retool conpared to normal.

The little differences can have huge impacts: Tesla batteries are just a few inches wider than the Bolt's, but those few inches mean wiring has to go through the roof or side rails instead of a more conventional route. That's a really seriously large change for some cars. They potentially have to run wiring before the interior, drive or battery goes in- completely changing the factory floor.

Intriguing hypothesis!

To chase it down a little more, is it true that legacy car companies don't use the "skateboard battery" approach, since this hypothesis predicts they would not?

They mostly haven't, because it was simpler for them to have a few bigger batteries, maybe that was easier to get from suppliers too? Also tesla didn't have to fit their design into factories and cars made for a long central drive shaft down the middle. There are some evs with the skateboard, the porsche coming in a year will have that format, and use lots of little batteries like the t.

The real shame is that the big carmakers have finally redesigned their platforms for EVs, after dragging their feet for a decade and a half on repackaging ICE platforms into EVs, and their new platforms are still not as good as Tesla's, which means their cars won't be as good for at least another decade.

I think the real advantage Tesla has is not that it builds cars, but that it builds batteries. Lots of them. The battery is the most significant part of an EV, cost-wise.

Having a massive production capacity in batteries means not only EVs, but also battery storage for utilities, power walls, possibly electric aviation, utility drones, etc.

Battery cooling and heating is their real tech advantage over the competitors in the car, plus superior software overall, superior ui integration, world wide supercharger network. And the best battery supply by far. That's all. And a ceo who like amazon's is content to add new tech and roll all potential profits into adding new tech to their vehicles.

Yes, like with many disciplines of engineering, starting with the right approach is a large part of designing a good product. Here it is with starting as an electric car with a battery skateboard. The rest then is competent engineering the structural parts around the battery and the crumple zones.

And it is no surprise that the engineering at Tesla is competent. After all, Tesla does have a good contact to SpaceX, where actual rocket scientists work :). In any case, SpaceX is a great source of expert knowledge on material science and structural strength.

You’re absolutely correct about the battery acting as a structural member. Another important safety plus is the removal of the engine. You now have the frunk acting as a large crumple zone and no chunk of metal shoving a steering column into the driver. But the battery indeed provides a lot of support to the pillars during side collisions.

edit. It's been pointed out that the steering column has not been a safety issue for decades. However, I suppose the point remains about the added safety of lacking an engine, that is not having a block of metal ready to apply a large force in the drivers direction during a head on collision. But I'm happy to be corrected on this point too.

> and no chunk of metal shoving a steering column into the driver

It's not 1960 anymore. We have collapsible columns and we no longer have steering gears mounted on the frame forward of the axle (we have racks mounted on or in the vicinity of the firewall). Steering column in the driver's face is a non-issue and has been for decades.

> you now have the frunk acting as a large crumple zone and no chunk of metal shoving a steering column into the driver.

As a first responder who has responded to hundreds of MVAs, I have never seen nor heard of a steering column being shunted into a driver by the engine block. Perhaps in the 60s or earlier, but steering columns are designed to crumple.

Collapsable steering columns have been a thing for decades, and while Tesla touts it, they certainly don't imply that they're the only ones with one.

Traditional internal combustion engines have breakaway motor mounts these days, to allow the motor to detach from the chassis and drop down towards the roadway to minimize intrusion into the cabin, but having a motor crushed into your feet is only somewhat better than having it shoved into your lap, I suppose.

I think you are slightly unfair to the Bolt. Its battery is mainly in a skateboard like Teslas with some also under the rear seat [0]. So unless they really messed up the structure it should have the same advantages as the Tesla battery location.

That said, the front compartment is a big messy jumble of boxy components. This may not impact(!) safety much, but does show how far GM is from the level of integration Tesla attains.

[0] http://gmauthority.com/blog/wp-content/gallery/2017-chevrole...

Nah, the Bolt battery isn't nearly as structural. It increases chassis stiffness but has a low impact on safety. The reason is it's essentially hanging off chassis rails- Tesla batteries basically join to the chassis to form one big box.

The bolt battery also has no internal ribs, just a couple pretensioning bolts (to prevent vibration). It's only slightly stronger than a gas tank in an impact. Tesla batteries have huge internal ribs/separators that make the battery very resistant to deformation and intrusion in an impact.

The Tesla battery is also about 10% wider, which makes a HUGE difference. A side impact in the Bolt will be through your leg before it hits the battery. In the Tesla the battery will be hit around the same time you are, making it an extremely integrated part of the safety cell. Its much more complex to build this way, since theres no undercarriage to route things through.

> The engine in any normal car is totally incompressible

This is just an interesting aside note, but my mother was recently involved in a frontal collision while driving her 2016 hyundai i30. In what was approximately a 60-70 kph impact with another car, it was enough to shatter the aluminium engine block in several places, and the engine sort of crushed flat.

I'd never seen a block do that before, at least not in a relatively low speed collision. Wish I'd taken some photos of it. But it made me wonder if modern cylinder block design incorporates any failure points in their design for such a scenario...

Of course maybe it could have just come down to the randomness of crash dynamics.

the bolt should be a great crash safety car too then, although it is apparently much shorter than a m3.

Safety doesn't scale (well it does, but it scales linearly, meaning it doesn't get much cheaper at scale). It might cost Tesla a grand or two per car for all the metal they throw at the safety problem. That's less than a quarter million per quarter for them. Trimming that fat looks a lot more attractive to a company like GM that's shipping a quarter million cars per quarter because not over building things is a multi-million quarterly savings for them

You need to compare against cars in the same price class.

The vehicles in higher price classes are built on the same platforms as their mass-market counterparts. An Audi is just a VW and a Cadillac is a GM. Adding reinforcement to the luxury version of a car but not the mass-market version is a PR mess waiting to happen so nobody in their right mind will do it.

Size of the car, not brand. Sure an Audi A3 is disguised Golf, a VW Passat is disguised Audi A4. So the correcr comparison is Golf vs. A3 vs. similar sized car. You don't compare a VW Tuareg against a VW Polo for that very reason.

Every car was getting the top score until nhsta realized they were all "cheating". by cheating I mean going for the low hanging fruit: they all saw crash tests only doing frontal crashes and sideways, so they beefed up against those type of collisions.

When NHTSA checked that the most fatal (but less common) crashes where off center, they started testing that way and all grades crashed (pun intended). and all makers had a hard time to improve because engine and engine bay designs made it very difficult, but that was the goal of the new test: go for the high hanging fruit for those car designs.

the tesla battery chassis doesn't have the engine, so it is easier to make changes that will beef up their car in the very same way other makers did for full fontral collision before. basically they are " cheating" the same way makers "cheated" on the full fontral collision test before.

it is very likely that other kind of crash tests, that are not even tested by anybody because internal combustion engine cars always did so well on those, are extremely fatal on teslas. but we will never know because nhsta just put teslas in the same test battery as any other car. we lack the 50+ year of continuous self improvement cycle the crash tests had with other designs so far.

I highly doubt it's likely there are other possible tests that are "extremely fatal" only with Teslas.

Well that battery could and does catch fire during collisions, however rare that might be.

True, and that never happens with cars with gasoline in the tanks.

(/sarcasm)

To add substance:

From the nhsta site (https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/12...)

Observations on various aspects:

* "Because the lower the flash point, the more hazardous the fire risk, flammable electrolyte solvents in Li-ion batteries are more or less as hazardous as conventional vehicular fuels."

* "Because the narrower the flammability range, the less hazardous the fire risk, flammable electrolytic solvents in Li-ion batteries are about as hazardous as conventional vehicular fuels, and certainly less hazardous than hydrogen."

* "Because the lower the minimum ignition temperature, the more hazardous the fire risk, flammable electrolytic solvents are not as hazardous as conventional vehicular fuels."

* "Because the lower the minimum spark energy, the more hazardous the fire risk, flammable electrolytic solvents are probably about as hazardous as conventional vehicular fuels."

* "Because the lower the maximum flame temperature the lower the exposure risk (skin burns) to fire, electrolytic solvents are expected to pose no more of a severe risk to burn injuries than conventional vehicular fuels, gasoline and diesel."

* "Because of the probable similarity in the magnitude of the maximum flame temperatures, if the combustion of the electrolytic solvents were confined, the resulting overpressure that could build up would maximize at about the same levels as for the other flammable fuels, meaning that the burst damage that would result from Li-ion explosions would also be comparable to that from conventional vehicular fuels."

* "The thermal energy expected to be released upon initiation and combustion of the electrolytic solvents would be less than that of gasoline and diesel fuel."

Also don't forget that the millions of miles and hundreds of thousands of teslas gives enough size to have statistically comparable results to ice engines, and it looks great for tesla. Edit - here's an article on this from a few years ago https://www.businessinsider.com/elon-musk-blog-post-on-tesla...

That is far safer for the driver and passengers than a gasoline fire. People only fear it because it is unfamiliar.

When "cheating" is defined as preventing deaths in (i) the most common and (ii) the most deadly crash scenarios, I don't think it counts as cheating.

In this case, "cheating" is defined as designing only to pass whatever the NHTSA happens to be testing now, and ignoring all other areas where things could go wrong.

edit: I'm not saying I agree with GP, just explaining what I think they meant by stating that they were "cheating."

That doesn't really seem to be the case, though. The NHTSA looks at highway and road data to determine what types of crashes result in the highest number of fatalities and then creates tests around those. If "cheating" implies that they're only designed to pass what the NHTSA happens to be testing then, by extension, the vehicle would protect the occupants against the types of crashes that are most likely to result in a fatality. That seems like huge win to me.

I'm not saying I agree with OP, just explaining what I think they meant by stating that they were "cheating."

> ignoring all other areas where things could go wrong

Doesn't this just say that NHSTA is ignoring other areas where things could go wrong?

You are presenting a fatalistic theory that Tesla cars have some hidden safety flaws not found in ICE cars without any backing proof whatsoever. In fact, the NHTSA results show the opposite, where the top 3 cars with lowest probability of injury are Tesla cars. That is what I call FUD and it is happening daily on Twitter.

It's a reasonable thought experiment. Though it seems unlikely to be true it logically follows from the rest of the comment. This doesn't look like FUD to me.

You're not being very charitable here; you're assuming the parent has bad faith. Why can't we just be a bunch of people having fun together on the internet?

I strongly suspect the parent was arguing in bad faith. The word choice of "cheating" and the baseless allegation that outside of the specific test crashes that there were likely to be fatalities is indicative of bad faith.

A good faith argument could be made to discuss how the crash tests like any sort of benchmarking are likely to lead to optimization for the tests - you get more of what you can measure - so one needs to be careful that the results are broadly applicable. This of course would apply to all makers, not just Tesla. But that is not the argument the parent made.

Ah yes, those crash tests that are not tested by anybody because we all know or assume ICE cars will do well in them, THOSE will be Tesla's achilles' heel!

It seems more likely that crash tests represent our best understanding of common crashes in the real world, in order to build vehicles that protect their occupants best.

To call this "cheating", you have to assume that car manufacturers are more knowledgeable about car safety in general than NHTSA, to be able to spot the loopholes. It may be true, they have more resources to invest in research and to hire experts in this domain, after all.

Still, I prefer to follow Hanlon's razor, and not assume malice. This kind of mistake always seem obvious in hindsight, but if it was, why was there no one warning about it at the time?

yes they are. nhtsa and others require so much preparation and analysis for each test that for the cost of one run the makers can run upwards of 1000 chasis compresion test which will cover every angle imaginable. so yes, the manufacturers know a lot more. but it is practical knowldge not cerfied and traceable and repeatable.

>it is very likely that other kind of crash tests, that are not even tested by anybody because internal combustion engine cars always did so well on those, are extremely fatal on teslas.

You assume there are such crash tests, but don't describe any specific ones. I am guessing that is because none exist, but perhaps I am mistaken.

LOL idealistic. Basically, if Tesla hasn’t made the absolute safest cars on the market, the auto industry would have sufficiently spread enough FUD about people’s kids burning up in battery fires.

I have a relative in the car industry here in the UK who keeps telling me that Teslas keep bursting into flames and there's some kind of massive cover-up. Surely if it were true we'd be hearing a lot more about it? They can't seem to cover-up their crazy CEO's antics or the autopilot issues, so how would they get away with this?

Of course the auto industry incumbents would publicize any weakness in tesla that they can find. Tesla fire danger is lower than ice cars, search google and find many article with hard numbers. Any fire is terrible, but the number of ice cars with fires is surprisingly large.

No amount of "but muh skateboard is hard to roll over" will chance the fact that all lithium batteries, provide fuel and an ignition source in one place whereas liquid fuels do not.

If batteries weren't more volatile than gasoline we'd store them in thin sheet-metal or plastic enclosures (like we do with gasoline) instead of enclosures so substantial that it makes sense to use them as a structural member in the vehicle.

Ok, reconcile your incontrovertible fact with the incontrovertible fact that the flagship electric car company’s products are safer than their liquid fuel competitors.

It's really quite simple and has little/nothing to do with fuel storage. The flagship electric car company can use a drive-train layout that gives them more space for impact absorption and they can take full advantage of this in their vehicle design because they do not have to accommodate ICE vehicles on the same platform.

The explorer firestone tire issue (overheating fuel pump, rollover, boom!), the ZJ grand cherokee fuel tank recall (totally unsafe without a tow hitch installed behind the tank), and the ford pinto come to mind. Heck, on my dads 66 chevy, if you forget to put on the gas cap and drive off, the gas will literally fall out of the back of the car).

Maybe instead of saying that batteries are more dangerous so they put them in stronger boxes you should instead be demanding to know why gasoline cars do not put their power source in a safer container.

>The explorer firestone tire issue (overheating fuel pump, rollover, boom!),

That was purely a rollover issue.

They didn't catch fire with any noteworthy regularity. I'm not sure how you can say otherwise. Ford used that same basic fuel system (modified in size and shape for the application) from the early 90s up through the late 2000s in their trucks (Ranger platform included) and full-size vans. There is nothing particularly bad about it. It's actually one of the best OEM fuel systems out there since it uses stainless steel for all the hard line and braided stainless over nylon(?) for all the soft line though based on some of the Rangers I've worked on I think they started making the lines coming off the fuel sender out of non-stainless steel sometime in the 2000s.

>he ZJ grand cherokee fuel tank recall (totally unsafe without a tow hitch installed behind the tank)

Rest assured, we'll have these same issues with EVs when the Chryslers and Kias of the world start making them en-mass.

> Heck, on my dads 66 chevy, if you forget to put on the gas cap and drive off, the gas will literally fall out of the back of the car).

Don't you think it's a little disingenuous to compare a modern Tesla to a 1966 Chevy? The 66 Chevy didn't have seat-belts or airbags either. It's 50yr older, what do you expect. Pickups had the gas tank in the cab through most of the 70s.

>Maybe instead of saying that batteries are more dangerous so they put them in stronger boxes you should instead be demanding to know why gasoline cars do not put their power source in a safer container.

Repeat after me class "liquid fuels do not provide their own ignition source."

EVs are the way of the future but trying to pretend that sitting on top of a box full of nasty chemicals that contain a bunch of electrons that really want to be elsewhere is safer than sitting on a jug of nasty liquid fuel, all else equal is just that, pretending. That's why Tesla makes the battery a structural member. They can't in good faith protect it much less than that so they may as well go a little overboard and reap some benefits in terms of chassis rigidity and then use the resulting safety as one of their pro-EV talking points.

But an ice car is also a box full of nasty chemicals too. And the first half million or so teslas have been proven to be safer than average ice cars. There are advantages of how tesla is laying out the skate board, but in practice they end up safer. Other car companies are copying this, the new Porsche will also be skateboard.

>Cynically I’d suppose the incumbents are heavily optimised to maximise shareholder value so vehicle safety might actually be reduced to maximise profit given expected liability from damages

How else should we arrive at the optimal amount of safety? What moral formula, if not the averted costs of accidents, do you propose?

In this world at least, resources are not unlimited. An ultra-safe car that cost a million dollars would not be very useful to many people.

As for why Tesla would go beyond that, I can think of several reasons: it might be betting that its customers place a higher subjective value on the feeling of security, it might think that higher safety is important to fend off unfavorable press/regulation, etc. It could also be that the costs for Tesla to increase safety are lower than for other car companies for some reason (e.g. older car companies have already invested into older sub-optimal components). But these are all rational, self-interested reasons just like the avoidance of liability.

> yet they’re punching above their weight so easily.

If you follow the news and especially Musk's twitter and interviews; there's nothing at all easy about what they're doing. The sweat and hours Tesla puts in to making their company successful is far beyond any of the other typical "corporate" car companies.

I would view it somewhat of another way - there is so much excess space in these Teslas, that the vehicle could be made smaller. Do we really need a frunk? What if the vehicle was made ~1m smaller instead?

This is what they are doing in China, with LSEVs:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-giant-market-for-tiny-ca...

I drive a Model X and I got it precisely because of the extra space :)

Tesla has access to technology most auto companies simply don't is one way to look at it. Also, Elon doesn't seem to be willing to compromise on safety in the overall vehicle designs if at all possible. The crash testing from every tesla vehicle pretty much prove this. They're in a league of their own, quite literally.

Their battery packs are using Inconel instead of steel. Inconel is a super-alloy generally used in aerospace applications, such as SpaceX's superdraco rocket engines.

SpaceX was the first rocket company to use friction stir welding at massive scale to manufacture their rocket bodies and as a result, developed some novel methods to do it. They transferred this expertise to Tesla, which is one of the things that makes the Tesla vehicles safer. Their welds are simply stronger due to FSW techniques.

That's not to mention less obvious things such as the expertise in aeronautics and wind tunnels from SpaceX helping Tesla design more efficient body styles, etc.

One thing that stood out to me in this blog post was the comments about the doors. They say:

> "Model 3 also has the lowest intrusion from side pole impact of any vehicle tested by NHTSA. Unlike frontal crashes, there is little room for crumple zone in a side impact, so we patented our own pillar structures and side sills to absorb as much energy as possible in a very short distance. These structures work alongside the vehicle’s rigid body and fortified battery architecture to further reduce and prevent compartment intrusion. With less intrusion into the cabin, our side airbags have more space to inflate and cushion the occupants inside."

It's something I didn't really appreciate until weeks after we brought our 3 home, but the sides of the car have an incredibly strange shape. Both front and rear doors, and even the rear fender and side sills, have absolutely massive character lines and sculpting. I have no idea if they're outright thicker than other carmakers' doors, or if they're there for aerodynamics, or if they aid safety, but they're really like nothing else. Take a close look next time you see one; I think the S is much the same way, but like most people, I don't usually stop to closely examine styling elements unless I have a particular reason to do so.

Tesla "open sourced" a lot of their patents, which was a good thing. But why would they then patent things like side panel designs that could save lives?

It kind of highlights the idea that the original release of patents on the electric tech was self serving only. In hopes that it would bring electric to more mainstream and help create a charger network faster.

Now that patents are first to file, couldn't someone patent the doors based off reverse engineering a tesla and then sue tesla for infringement?

That patent could easily be defeated by showing the older Tesla designs as proof of "prior art". This could happen i) easily after the application is published through an internal submission to the examiner, ii) fairly easily after grant through an "Inter Partes Review"[0], and iii) then still at any time in the future through litigation in the courts.

These submissions could be made by Tesla, or any third party who cares about the illegitimate patent not being in effect. If anyone, at any time, demonstrates that prior art existed before the date of the patent application, that patent can be permanently invalidated. This happens frequently, and is often used by victims of patent trolls to defend themselves. With the side benefit of "punishing" the patent troll.

[0] https://www.uspto.gov/patents-application-process/appealing-...

Pet peeve: choosing the axis to make yourself look better.

Model 3 is around 8-10% lower than the Model S, but on that graph appears to be 50% lower.

These are great scores, and fantastic news, but this is purposeful dishonesty to exaggerate and mislead.

Hiding the labels of the axis is dishonest. Choosing a good frame to compare different values is not.

Would you consider this chart misleading: https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/gdp ?

edit: they gain nothing by making the 3 appear safer than the S and X. They make much bigger margin on the most expensive models, and they want to increase demand for them (while they're ramping up the 3 production and go through the huge backlog). Although they've stopped anti-selling the 3, they certainly don't want people to think of the 3 has a newer/better version of the S.

I think they chose their axis range to make the differences starker than they are. Their graph doesn’t include a value for the highest probabilities, for instance. I’m all for zooming a graph to maximize information content, but a range of 5-8% doesn’t present a clear heuristic tie to any widely known phenomenon. A range of 5-10% would have the benefit of being easier to tie to 1/20 to 1/10 odds.

Having said that, this is Tesla’s website. Of course it’s all sales copy to move product.

The one you mention is not misleading: they put the Y values everywhere in the chart.

The other one is starting at 5% and ending at 8%. While a full range 0-100% would bury the relevant data, a picture with 0-10% would tell a different story.

I do, and I don't think I'm the only one. There is no hint of the bars continuing below the axis, and the effective result is the impression that the relative difference is larger than it really is.

Even the gradients seem poorly chosen, the bar gets to full white by the bottom. My intuitive first impression is that if the gradient cannot continue below the chosen cut off point, then the bar cannot continue either.

>There is no hint of the bars continuing below the axis

Aren't the numbers big and bold enough? Should we only design chart while presuming that viewers can't read numbers?

Scaling graphs is not so out of the norm that you need to explicitly call out when you are doing it. Just present your axes and label them correctly.

I agree. The axis chosen exagerrates differences between the values. Also, why are all the non-tesla products the same color as the background? Is this another distortion technique?

> Also, why are all the non-tesla products the same color as the background? Is this another distortion technique?

That's convention when you're calling attention to specific data points. When you have a graph comparing a dozen items but you're really only concerned with how 1 or 2 items fall in the pack, you generally color them to stand out from the rest.

Take a look at any computer hardware review site and you'll see similar coloring. (https://images.anandtech.com/graphs/graph13254/light-bw.png)

They're also comparing them to "top 50 vehicles since 2011."

Since they don't list which specific vehicles and years that includes, it is hard to draw any conclusions but it is odd contrasting vehicles which are up to seven years old.

I cannot even locate "Lowest Probability of injury" on NHTSA's site. So I'm not sure what the percentage are referring to. Can someone point me towards it?

PS - I don't doubt the Model 3 is a very safe vehicle. My post is about the way Tesla is conveying that information and what information they're conveying.

Same hear, I tried to get at least some official ranking of results by model and year, if not the raw data, and didn't find anything. Maybe that's non-public, which wouldn't make sense. But as it stands it is hard to recreatw the ranking Tesla is using and to verify the numbers. Without sources, and a scetchy presentation, it is just a markwting statement from one manufacturer. So no different to everybody else out there. Cherry picking numbers and setting context alsways works.

> it is odd contrasting vehicles which are up to seven years old.

How so? Some of the top 50 safest cars are seven years old, hence they appear on the chart.

Exactly. That's like saying the Saturn 5 shouldn't be on the list of most powerful rockets because it's 50+ years old.

If a 7 year old car is still one of the top 50 safest cars on the road then you should either be applauding whomever made that car or condemning whomever ranked beneath it. Not questioning why it's on the list.

It didn't say the top 50 SAFEST cars, it say the "top 50 cars." Totally different things.

Exactly. There have been a lot of subcompact tin cans sold in the past 7yr

Specific models aren't really relevant in the comparison are they? The title of the blog says it all.

> Model 3 achieves the lowest probability of injury of any vehicle ever tested by NHTSA

Which makes and models are they comparing? All of them.

They aren't telling you who ranked 4th or 7th or 23rd because it doesn't matter. The graphs are just there to give you a basis for comparison.

> The graphs are just there to give you a basis for comparison.

Which is far more relevant if they're comparing against well performing 2018 models relative to vehicles from seven years ago. Why include the graph at all if it has nothing to say?

They're not comparing 2018 models to 2011 models. They're comparing their cars to the safest cars in the last 7 years. You're assuming incorrectly that a newer model vehicle will always be safer than an older vehicle.

The graph they're showing is:

> SELECT TOP 50 * > FROM [carSafetyList] AS c > WHERE c.ModelYear >= 2011 > ORDER BY c.SafetyRating

The other makes and models aren't relevant because Tesla has asserted that their cars are safer than any other vehicle tested in the last 7 years. If they're being truthful then that means you can pick any car the NHTSA has tested in the last 7 years and it will rank no higher than 4th on their graph.

Would the knowledge that that a Volvo XC90 ranked 4th or 5th change anything? No, therefore why identify any other model?

> They're comparing their cars to the safest cars in the last 7 years.

They said the "top 50 vehicles." They didn't say the top 50 safest vehicles.

> The other makes and models aren't relevant because Tesla has asserted that their cars are safer than any other vehicle tested in the last 7 years.

We're meant to take Tesla asserting something, and not backing it up with facts as gospel? We literally don't even know what the source of those percentages are, for all we know Tesla created them.

There is also large weight differences between a Model S P100D and Model S 40 and they don't specify which one they are talking about. I would not be surprised if weight was an important factor in the results (there is an even a larger weight difference between basic Model 3 and Model X 100D)

Amazing.

Watching car crash tests on youtube is eye opening, and it's interesting to see what makes a good car good. It has certainly made me an even more careful driver. Especially the "car runs into the back/side end of a trailer" crash type is very gruesome since it may strip the top half of a car off like a band-aid in a hot bath tub.

Another good car in this aspect is the Smart car, which really punches above its weight and seems very well engineered from the crash point of view. Can't speak of it otherwise.

Several weeks ago I went to a funeral for a family of four, who were killed when an 18-wheeler rear-ended them on an interstate and shoved them under a flatbed trailer. I can't imagine that being survivable in any car. They were in a Ford Explorer.

How does a Mack/Volvo truck rear-end an SUV such that it ends up under the trailer? Those locomotives don’t have much ground clearance...

Based on how it was written, I assume that the Explorer was shunted from behind by the 18-wheeler, into the flatbed trailer of a different vehicle that was in front.

Yep, exactly.

That's horrible, sorry to hear that.

Dashcam footage (/r/roadcam /r/idiotsincars) is good for a sobering reminder of how easily crashes happen, and how hard they can be to avoid even with careful driving.

~40,000 Americans die a year; it's nuts out there.

Interesting, I wonder how much of this is from the advantage of the car being a EV. Not having a huge engine on the front or a "transmission" probably gives a lot of freedom on how the chassis can be designed. It must of been really fun designing the car frame.

Does anyone know how the BMW i3 and the Chevrolet Bolt compare?

I can’t speak for those, but the Ford Focus Electric is based on the original ICE Focus design and has the batteries in the rear cargo area (and no frunk either). The lack of a big chunk of metal where the engine would be - without augmenting the front crumple zone - presumably lessens the Electric Focus’ front impact safety rating based on the physics alone.

This is flawed reasoning.

Think of the original Focus's crumple zone as a spring that can deflect until it hits the rigid engine. Remove the engine for the electric model and the spring is free to deflect further. Increased deflection results in more energy absorption. You also get increased time during which the impact is spread out, reducing maximum acceleration.

If your original thinking is that the engine acts as dead weight to absorb momentum, which is now located in other areas of the car in the electric version, this is likely a smaller effect than the increased energy absorption and impact duration.

I wish I could find a trustworthy comparison of the safety ratings of the two models, but it looks like the two cars' ratings are considered identical most places I look. Not sure if that is actually true.

Worse. No matter how good they do they can't do better because they're smaller cars with less availible space that can be converted into time spent decelerating in a crash. Crumple zone size is a high school physics problem. More distance -> more time -> less acceleration -> less force

Someone threw together pictures of the car

https://imgur.com/a/oCAVKzz

Damn - really looking to buy one... only if the price was actually $35k - not $60k

It's not the only factor, but it's a shame Musk really wanted to put the Autopilot hardware into all Model 3s. I think that increased the base price of the car by at least $5,000.

The autopilot hardware IS in every single car. Every autopilot feature as of now is a software feature flag. That's why you can buy "Enhanced Autopilot" and "Full Self Driving" features after your car is delivered at any time.

Someday when Tesla has scaled up, those features will most likely be standard. Right now, they are trying to be profitable and a high number of current orders are willing to pay for at least the Enhanced Autopilot.

The 35k version is still on track for a few months from now.

The autopilot hardware does not add 5k and the basic safety features are included in the base model (crash warning, emergency breaking) etc. What costs 5k is the convinience of on ramp to off ramp autopilot.

$60k is FUD.

It's $50k. Inflating the price by 20% does not add credibility to your argument.

I, too, was hoping for a $35k Model 3, but when it came time to pull the trigger, I realized I'd want the $5000 Premium package regardless, so it wasn't hard to talk myself into the extra $9k for the bigger battery when considering the guaranteed tax incentives vs the unknown ETA of the mythical "short range" car.

There are 2 reasons to buy a Tesla - electric power, and self-driving capability.

If I don't get full self-driving, I can get a Jaguar, a Hyundai or a Nissan Leaf. These are cheaper or have more options and better return for your dollar. On the configurator, it gives me $58.4K with the base motor

Tesla also gives you access to a supercharger network that you won't get with the other brands.

As a followup comment mentioned, the Supercharger network is a huge plus; whether or not road trips are possible with other DC Fast Charging networks on another manufacturer's car, the seamlessness of the Supercharger experience from the number of installed units, to realtime charger status on your nav screen means it can't be beat. If nothing else, it solves for the uncertainty, even if that's just FUD.

I still think the 3 is hard to beat for the combination of real-world usability, range, and tech. I think it's a fantastic car in its own right; I preferred it to the options that were available at the time, which did not include the Jag or Hyundai.

Googling it now, the Jag starts at $20k more than our 3, is "available in the fall" and has a much crappier range.

The Hyundai is like the Leaf and eGolf; $30-$35k for an extremely limited range and performance vehicle. If you don't mind spending that much money on what is solely a commuter car, that's fine. With Tesla I'm able to use it as a commuter and as a nice weekend getaway and roadtrip vehicle.

I did the 14 day autopilot trial, and... it works, but I'm more nervous using it than just driving myself. I certainly don't want to be a beta tester of this stuff at 70mph. It was occasionally nice in traffic jams, but not $5k nice.

Put simply, every other car I've owned, I had to drive myself. And I don't mind it; in fact, I enjoy driving. The 3 is pleasant to drive, so I don't see why I wouldn't want to. Some folks on the forums disagree and think the only reason to buy one is autopilot/FSD. They're welcome to their opinion, but I don't share it.

But none of those cars are practical for long distance travel. Superchargers are only for the tesla (today at least, it must be in a few years other companies will make competitors?) and that makes them vastly more practical for long distance travel. For a few 100 mile trips the other cars are okay. So add #3 distance travel. #4 way better consumer electronics and ui.

Calling $60k FUD is way overboard considering that's the average selling price...

That was about the absolute most you could possibly pay for one (assuming you ordered the 19" wheels AND paid for autopilot AND paid to pre-order FSD) until they started shipping the Dual Motor and Performance models, what, 1 month ago?

When 60k was the max, it couldn't have been the average, and now that there's been a sudden backlog of AWD/Performance demand being satisfied, the numbers are being skewed up similarly.

There's no way 60k can possibly be the average of all sold 3s.

And, regardless, in the context of parent's post "if only it was $35k instead of $60k", the correct way to phrase it would have been "if only it was $35k instead of $50k".

The averages went from $55k to $56k to $60k in the last three quarters. Including Autopilot and FSD does actually make sense, considering at the $35k unveiling Musk joked it wouldn't have a steering wheel...

A reasonable person with the facts at hand could have written what OP did. Calling it FUD is straight up uncalled for, even if your argument is correct.

According to the fine article (by Tesla) the number #1 spot is the Tesla Model 3. Number 2? Tesla Model S. Number 3? Tesla Model X.

Too bad they didn't call the 3 Model E.

Here's hoping for the Model Y :)

The Model Y will be a crossover, or minature Model X. It is already set to be anounced in 2019.

They actually did want to call it the Model E, but Ford filed for a Trademark.

https://www.businessinsider.com/why-tesla-named-model-3-mode...

"3" is a workaround, models will spell "S3XY" together.

Honest Question: is there enough data to show how likely the battery will burst into flames in crashes? So far the few incidences that I'm aware of make it feels like "the battery don't always burn, but when it does, there's no way to survive out of that". How true is that?

https://www.autoblog.com/2018/05/11/a-list-of-tesla-car-fire...

There's a mix of 'freak' failures and some seriously gnarly crashes, but overall not that many fires. It's not a complete list, as Tesla claims 'about 40' fires (link below) but the severity of the others may not have been newsworthy.

Battery fire vs. ICE fire rates are somewhat tricky to compare (you want an apples-to-apples comparison, so throw out older ICE cars, cars of different classes, etc.) but ICE cars catch on fire quite a bit. If fires are your concern, BEVs are likely the better option.

https://money.cnn.com/2018/05/17/news/companies/electric-car...

One complication is that BEVs are novel and emergency services may not yet have effective procedures for responding to such events.

I wonder why aren't "they" making extendable bumpers for cars? Like extend bumpers 2 feet forward and backward when collision is imminent and then use the extra space as extra crumple zone.

Can you "optimise" for crash tests? Like, say, software is optimised against specific benchmark to give good scores.

Optimizing for the test, in a way that does not necessarily have any relevance for real-world performance, is much more of a possibility for software than it is for physical things. This is because of the fractal/chaotic nature of software: small differences can result in wildly different outcomes.

NHTSA testing has been developed over a long time, and in conjunction with studying both real-world and laboratory crashes, so I imagine they are quite realistic and representative. The one way that they equivocate the tests that I am aware of is to divide vehicles into weight classes, but this would be difficult to take advantage of.

A bit off topic, but I've never seen "fractal" and "chaotic" conjoined before. If you feel like expanding on that I'd be all ears.

On reflection, the 'fractal' bit isn't relevant here.

The fractal nature of software is the way that the abstract specification - concrete implementation dialog appears at all levels of detail.

According to this comment (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18167535) it is possible. It's not that Tesla is optimising for performance in these tests, it's more that the tests look at the failure modes of internal combustion engine chassis.

Sure. Every modern car, Tesla or not, has been designed to maximise crumple zone utilisation at the exact speeds prescribed in standardised tests. Crash a little slower or faster and a different structural design would yield better survivability.

As for what constitutes "modern" in this context, the first FEM simulations for iterating car crumple zone designs have been run in the 1980ies.

I was terrified of what would happen to my right knee if I ever got in an accident in Model 3. I felt the screen was intruding into crash zone. Unlike the dummy in real crash people move their limbs before and during the crash.

what can be done about insurance costs? id love to recommend a model 3 to friends and family but they can't all afford paying the same premiums as they would for a porsche 911...

I recently looked for an insurance quote for a model 3. At least through esurance it was going to be cheaper than my 07 BMW X3 to insure. I am in New York where all insurance feels cheap compared to when I lived in Michigan.

You'd love to recommend a specific car for your friends and family but have decided not to because of an unknown quantity? Or did you actually price out insurance and find that it cost as much as a 911? I'm not even sure if 911s are particularly expensive to insure, but I do know our Model 3 costs no more to insure than my VW Golf did.

pricing it out online, at least in canada, has it in the upper tiers (of course other factors may influence your premiums more than the car, ymmv). tesla was also only in a handful of the databases. its great to hear there are companies offering competitive rates! id read somewhere the reason for high numbers are twofold: bodywork and its speed (ie accident risk) are equal to high performance vehicles, so thanks for chiming in with real world examples

I pay about the same for insurance on my Model 3 as I did on the Mazda CX-7 it replaced. I've heard stories of some insurers charging ridiculous premiums for Teslas, but that hasn't been my experience with USAA.

Let's wait for European ratings. Model S did not excel at those.

It got a 5 star rating, the highest available.

These have percentages on the official web site. Many cars have 5 in rounded rating, but if you look at the percentages...

There's only 2014 S though: https://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/latest-safety-ra...

Now multiply by the chance of getting into the collision in the first place.

Except for the huge tablet on the console you need to use while driving. Averting eyes from the road.

Five percent is very much non-zero and scarily so. And this is just for the vehicle occupants, not counting damage and injury to other people hit by a vehicle. Whilst we can applaud the work done, there is much more to do.

5% is actually extremely impressive. I do not think there will be a "zero" car with the current understanding of physics and materials (maybe a new super material can be developed. A non-newtonian interface would be awesome to see). The amount of kinect energy a car has is absolutely absurd. The energy has to go somewhere and redirecting it away from the occupants is not an easy task.

There is a physical limitation, because of the deceleration tolerated by the human body has an upper limit if you want people to survive.

Vehicle crashes by themselves are nowhere near the upper limits of the amount of force the human body can survive. With proper harnesses we could survive speeds well in excess of 100mph straight into a wall. The problem is passenger cabins can't survive that.

http://www.ejectionsite.com/stapp.htm

The problem is that passenger vehicle restraints suck because they have to fit anybody and everybody and simple enough that you actually use them. In the upper classes of racing it's not uncommon for someone to walk away with only a concussion after a barrel roll down the infield but they have better seats and harnesses. Even a 4pt harness like found in a go-cart or small aircraft would be a massive step up.

Go-karts do not have harnesses at all, much less four-point harnesses. Source, ex kart racer.

Off road go-carts usually have a simple 4pt.

And how does that contradict my claim? There is an upper limit to what the human body can survive, and going into a wall with 160kmph (100mph) and claim we can survive is a dishonest statement at best. If the car has a 4m long deformation zone the force is around 50g for 0.1 second. That is unrealistic, and 1m is probably more realistic, producing 200g for 0.023s. Neither is clearly survivable.

I'm not disputing that we can make very safe vehicles, just look at F1 drivers walking away from 300kmph crashes, but they shed so much energy to tires, tire barriers, gravel and all the other stuff that slow them down.

I always liked the "Demolition Man" approach of filling the car with some kind of instantly-solidifying foam. The mental image of Stallone busting his way out always comes to mind when these conversations come up!

I once saw a demo of a foam sealant that could be used temporarily to fill cracks in a basement. The demo had a person shove the end of the can into a crack and then just press it and shot out and filled the crack. Once it absorbed enough water, it would start to dissolve and came out as a kind of slurry where it could easily be vacuumed and replaced with a proper sealant. It wasn't a permanent fix but was just there to buy some time. If they could implement a system like that in a car where the foam fills the cabin instantly and then water or sprinklers quickly dissolve it, something like Demolition Man could probably be a reality.

I believe the reality here is that this is that work being done to improve safety. You don't go from 10 to 1% on your first attempt and Tesla seems to view this as iterative, and continuous, improvement of chassis design as a critical output of their products. It's also great to see them highlight this as it keeps safety out there as a concern. Maybe it doesn't influence other car manufacturers directly but it will posit questions in the minds of buyers that may, over time, do just that to other brands.

Regarding injury from being hit by a vehicle: that isn't the point of this release by Tesla. The focus is the safety of the occupants, which is far more top of mind to buyers than the worry of hitting pedestrians. It's great that many brands now have CV that can detect and stop based on a person being within the vector of a vehicle. Tesla happens to be one of them and it would be interesting to see an objective test of pedestrian detection and mitigation at some point. Probably a critical test for manufacturers to have to pass as we continue towards autonomous operation.

The priority is quite high, given that you can go to jail for hitting a pedestrian

Safety, acceleration and comfort are Tesla's pro-EV talking points. Of course they're going to try to be good at them. This car accomplishes those design goals (i.e. the people involved did their jobs).

Safety is an easier goal to accomplish when you're only shipping cars in low volume because you can just throw steel at the problem. When you're an established car company shipping millions of cars per year cutting out a few hundred dollars of materials per car and a handful of part numbers and a few dozen manufacturing steps is a huge tantalizing savings and wall street awards profits, not overbuilt cars so that's what you do. I don't think Tesla will ever be a high volume manufacturer (I think they'll wind up closer to Audi or similar) but it'll be interesting to see if they can keep over building cars at scale.

You can't not mention the battery pack and the huge crumple zones. Yes they have bigger, more expensive cars, but their design is fundamentally much safer than the standard gasoline designs. The battery is a huge pro-safety factor, it's very low, massive, and very rigid, plus it frees up space in the front/rear for crumple zones to be much larger.

Model 3's aren't being made 'at scale'?

I swear that Tesla will always be considered a boutique novelty when rhetorically convenient unless they're literally the best-selling automaker.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com