Tesla owner breaks window to escape after car bursts into flames
inputmag.com
inputmag.com
Having a mostly-hidden emergency release is practically worthless in an emergency scenario, since in such an event you can't count on users hunting for and operating a new control that they've never used before.
I've seen Teslas drive somewhat better than that before, so it appears their latest update in response to last week's fatal crash has some serious regressions.
I wouldn't be comfortable making that assertion, given you don't know if the car you describe was using FSD, let alone FSD of a specific version.
The design in Model S and X are that a light pull of the door handle triggers the electronic latch, but pulling it fully will engage the mechanical release also. I think this design is excellent, but I personally believe that every other mechanism Tesla has used is dangerous, especially for backseat passengers who are more likely not to know the unusual location and operation of the emergency releases.
When I took delivery of my car many years ago, one of the back door latches hadn't been connected at the factory, so luckily I learned all about this on day 1 of ownership.
Live by the sword, die by the sword, and all that.
You'll note that the Kia Niro EV gets minimal coverage (other than perfunctory reporting of recalls) because....wait for it...they don't claim it's safer or better than other cars, just electrified.
Meanwhile, Tesla is delivering 300K vehicles per quarter.
Kia Niro EV gets minimal coverage because they're selling a minimal number of them.
For a proper comparison, Kia sells 200k vehicles/month (for 600k/quarter). And is considered one of the smaller major automakers.
Kias don't get covered in the news because cheap, reliable cars that don't have issues aren't newsworthy. They're the standard. Teslas are in the news all the time because they're expensive pieces of crap that have constant issues from the moment they roll of the assembly line.
But the media likes to latch on to that idea. Like a plane crash, a Tesla fire is exceptionally rare, but the news media will report every single one.
If someone's ICE overheats and catches fire, it will hit the local news, maybe. Even if it does, it'll be a 15 second "Oh, traffic on I-5 was slower than normal this afternoon because of a car fire." But a Tesla fire? That's national news.
The lithium battery fires basically cannot be extinguished, and it's a tremendous amount of energy.
> Teslas sure love catching fire, don't they?
implies a higher quantity of fires, which is just FUD.
I guess our anecdata cancels out.
The theme of "no need for buttons, everything is software driven" of the model 3 is the thing I like the least about the car. The marketing message is "this is the future, and it's better", when in reality, I think it's all motivated by cutting costs.
A single touch screen is far cheaper than the cost of designing and testing physical controls. The "fancy" feature of rolling down the frameless windows before opening and closing isn't a feature, it's a compromise. Rather than properly design seals, let software solve it.
If I could have a Model 3 that had no touch screen, manual everything, that'd be amazing. It'd also mean that random software updates wouldn't require me to relearn where the hell all the controls I'd become familiar with went.
The problem is that you can't market your creation as a yuppie status symbol when you've built stuff using off the shelf parts. Some snarky reviewer will point out that you're using some switch in common with their 10yo car or that the out of sight portion of your HVAC is copy-pasta'd from a minivan and the internet idiot will whip themselves into a frenzy over it.
I'm sure the engineers would just love to call up someone who makes that stuff just buy a battle tested solution but that is simply not compatible with the realities of the product they're working on.
He'd test the physical controls in Toyotas.
What "testing" meant was pretty broad. It might mean simple single control bench testing, to environmental testing (ie, mocking up a car interior, then exhaustively flipping switches and turning knobs in various atmospheric conditions, from freezing and dry to hot and humid, and all variations between), to epic road trips cross country, to epic off roading trips.
While it's true there are companies that offer "turn-key" components, the integration of all of these still requires a huge amount of testing.
I want REAL controls that never move, that can be used without having to take my eyes off the road, and that have tactile feedback when used. It seems clever to just move physical controls to software, like it's some sort of innovation, but for me, as the driver, I'll never buy a car again that does it the way Tesla does it.
https://teslamotorsclub.com/tmc/attachments/smartselect_2019...
While I remembered the physical lever existed, I forgot where it actually was until this post so I would likely be spending that time to figure it out again and probably just panic and break the window like the person in the original article did.
This is to facilitate opening and closing, not to protect the weatherstripping. In modern cars (last decade at least) the cabin is air tight enough that closing the door fast/hard enough to get both "halves" of the double latch secure meets air pressure resistance that makes this "hard". By lowering the window a smidge, the force required from inside to pull the door shut is reduced.
This feature is fully achievable with the same sensor that detects whether the [mechanically controlled] door is open or not, and whether you are pulling on the interior latch.
For sedans (cars where the window glass is fully framed in the door), the design of the weather stripping doesn't require this window behavior. You can probably visualize why that is. In a coupe, the window glass has to seal quite tightly against the roofline, with a very limited profile and no supporting structure.
That may be the stated reason, but like retracting door handles, it's an aesthetic decision.
Different cars have different air-tightness of the cabin, different interior volume, different door pull designs, and different door weights. It's these factors combined that dictate whether such window shenanigans are useful or not. Not just the inherent limitations of sealing the glass against the roofline.
The major point of my response was that Tesla's claim (per the post, I didn't verify) that this is needed or useful to somehow improve the longevity of the weatherstripping, is nonsense. However, there are other valid reasons for this behavior.
So if my car is on fire, I can get out using the manual release, but my kids have to kick their way free? Or climb out the front? Or wait for me to break the window from the outside somehow?
How is this even legal?
This really looks like a corolla. I’ve heard the critique before of the interiors but wow. Beyond that, they have to roll the windows down every time you open the door to prevent damage to the seals? That seems insane? I’d get used to it but I’m surprised this isn’t pointed out more often as kind of absurd engineering.
Not sure I understand your concern here, but isn't is how every frame-less car door works? See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NM-dunSOLw
It isn't. My 2004 toyota solara had frameless windows and didn't play any shenanigans with it, and as others in this rough thread have pointed out, subaru doesn't either. I don't know where you got this idea but you've managed to ingore two very popular brands at minimum so maybe you should reconsider some things
In the case of Toyota Solara, how does the glass fit with the seal on the A-pillar and roof? The roll-down mechanism is required because the glass on those doors have to be "inserted" into the seal.
So it’s a form over function trade off. CLS is a low volume model. Looks absurd to me in a model 3 “mass market car” alongside 2 door handles, a classic one and a cool button press one.