
Tesla Model S Rated 'Acceptable' in IIHS Crash Test, Tesla Lashes Back - valentinebm
http://www.thedrive.com/news/12203/tesla-model-s-rated-acceptable-in-iihs-crash-test-tesla-lashes-back
======
thsowers
Full statement from Tesla given to cnbc[0]

> Tesla's Model S received the highest rating in IIHS's crash testing in every
> category except for one, the small overlap front crash test, where it
> received the second highest rating available. While IIHS and dozens of other
> private industry groups around the world have methods and motivations that
> suit their own subjective purposes, the most objective and accurate
> independent testing of vehicle safety is currently done by the U.S.
> government, which found Model S and Model X to be the two cars with the
> lowest probability of injury of any cars that it has ever tested, making
> them the safest cars in history.

[0] [http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/06/insurance-institute-for-
highw...](http://www.cnbc.com/2017/07/06/insurance-institute-for-highway-
safety-tests-tesla-model-s.html) (Autoplay video)

~~~
dingaling
"the most objective and accurate independent testing of vehicle safety is
currently done by the U.S. government"

I think EuroNCAP would object to that statement, given the list of their
members:

[https://www.euroncap.com/en/about-euro-ncap/members-and-
test...](https://www.euroncap.com/en/about-euro-ncap/members-and-test-
facilities/list-of-euro-ncap-members-and-test-facilities/)

NCAP results for 2015 test of Tesla Model-S, 82% overall. Pedestrian safety
let it down badly:

[https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/tesla/model-s/7897](https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/tesla/model-s/7897)

Compares interestingly to 2013 test of Maserati Ghibli, similar shape to Model
S:

[https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/maserati/ghibli/8874](https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/maserati/ghibli/8874)

------
concinds
Tesla might well be in the wrong, but the article is frankly written in a
biased way.

> Rather than going back to the drawing board to improve the Model S's design

What is Tesla is right, and the test is inadequate? Ultimately the only thing
that matters is for the car to be safe on the road, and passing IYI-designed
tests may or may not approximate that well enough.

> Tesla then continued on saying the most accurate crash test is done by the

Why not quote the full Tesla statement? We're left thinking that Tesla has
reasons for disagreeing with this test, but the reasons are conveniently
omitted. The whole article literally only quotes seven words written by Tesla
themselves.

>Tesla quickly responded saying IIHS has "motivation that suits their own
subjective purposes." [...] Still, IIHS wasn't bashing Tesla in the least as
they rated the Model S as "Good" in the moderate overlap front, side, roof
strength and head restraint & seats test.

This last sentence is blatantly dishonest. A test result being good has no
bearing on whether the test is fair.

I feel like this bias could only be conscious and deliberate, with the author
hoping that people won't be critical/skeptical enough readers for it to work.
This is disgraceful "journalism".

~~~
andrewguenther
There isn't even a single source link in the entire article (except to the
IIHS page for the safety rating)

Further, they talk about how Tesla bragged about the Model X's IIHS rating,
but the Model X has never undergone an IIHS crash test. Totally agree, pitiful
journalism.

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
Sometimes I see Tesla and it seems like 10% engineering and 90% BS and Elon
Musk reality distortion aura a la Steve Jobs.

~~~
aaron-lebo
Isn't part of Musk's genius his ability as a bullshit artist? He is a
brilliant engineer and visionary, but take away his showmanship and he's just
another balding engineer. Doesn't mean his showmanship isn't impressive. Just
like Jobs.

~~~
darawk
That's not really fair to Musk. The man has created a string of extraordinary
companies. He has done objectively impressive things on a scale and with a
frequency that is objectively highly unusual. He is a showman, and to some
extent a bullshit artist. But to say he's "just another balding engineer", or
even to say he's "just like Jobs" is to unfairly discredit him, imo.

------
andrepd
>Tesla quickly responded saying IIHS has "motivation that suits their own
subjective purposes."

>It's also worth noting, the Tesla Model X did very well in the same crash
test—and Tesla was quick to brag about that vehicle's IIHS safety rating.

Now, which is it then?

~~~
andrewguenther
It doesn't appear like the Model X has gone through an IIHS test. I can't find
any references to one and the link in the article actually goes to the Model S
IIHS page...

------
Pulcinella
Video of the test in question.

[https://youtu.be/fMcuiFmIQTo](https://youtu.be/fMcuiFmIQTo)

Edit: If you go to the IIHS website and click on the pictures for the small
overlap crash, it explains their reasoning for the rating.

[http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/tesla/model-s-4-d...](http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/tesla/model-s-4-door-
hatchback)

Double edit: Or I guess you can just go to the actual report for the test from
the left side bar...

~~~
yread
> the left front wheel shattered during the crash, and the brake rotor and
> caliper assembly split the hinge pillar and penetrated the occupant
> compartment. Upper interior intrusion measured 2 cm at the hinge pillar and
> 9-12 cm at the instrument panel.

> a high head acceleration occurred when the dummy's head hit the steering
> wheel through the airbag, indicating that head injuries would be possible

>the dummy’s head contacted the frontal airbag but started to move off the
left side because the seat belt allowed excessive forward excursion of the
head and torso

Seems fair to give second best rating. Also note the IIHS uses stricter tests
for vehicles manufactures since January 2017

------
valentinebm
>Rather than going back to the drawing board to improve the Model S's design,
Tesla quickly responded saying IIHS has "motivation that suits their own
subjective purposes."

~~~
Pulcinella
I mean it's true. The purpose of IIHS's tests aren't to prop up the egos of
car manufacturers.

------
gumby
The small overlap is a relatively recent introduction to the testing regime,
about five years old.

If you think of cars reflecting test-driven development; they all were tested
and rated on head-on collisions, but people noticed that you often, perhaps
most often, don't hit head on, but try to evade or simply drift into oncoming
traffic. So cars were designed to test well on what turns out to be the less
common case! And people who buy cars by safety ratings were also unwittingly
optimizing for the wrong case.

And the test has been a shock: my car, a mini, was rated very highly in front
collision safety, but the first time it received the small overlap test it
performed very poorly. (Luckily my wife's Mercedes did much better). When the
test was first run in 2012, I believe no cars did particularly well.

The current results reflect redesign to reflect this new test (it's not like
it emerged from a vacuum -- car companies knew it was coming and were involved
in designing the test). I would have thought Tesla would also have taken this
test into account as the Model S was introduced in 2012. And even reading the
article I thought so too until I read the statement on Tesla's web site. It
reads to me that they they didn't take the test into account. I hope that is
just poor wording on their part.

------
jedimastert
I guess the better question is, don't they have the data, results, and
guidelines to look at? This might seem like a silly question, but how does the
IIHS make it's results?

------
chrismealy
Model S is an old car. They need to design a new one.

