
Tesla Model S achieves best safety rating of any car ever tested - turing
http://www.teslamotors.com/about/press/releases/tesla-model-s-achieves-best-safety-rating-any-car-ever-tested
======
abalone
This is all very good PR.... BUT. The critical safety concern with the Tesla
is.......

You guessed it. The high voltage system. It can kill you or a first responder
with a touch.

It's not just about batteries catching fire, although that's gotten a lot of
press lately. A chief concern during a Tesla accident is the exposure of high
voltage components.

It's a big concern for first responders. Read it from the horse's mouth, the
Tesla Emergency Response Guide. Page 16 highlights the "no cut" zones of the
car. It's practically the entire length of the car.

[http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/downloads/201...](http://www.teslamotors.com/sites/default/files/downloads/20130214_ModelS_Emergency_Response_Guide.pdf)

There was a video they put out as well that details the steps first responders
need to take to cut someone out of a car. It's HELLA COMPLICATED and in very
close proximity to dangerous high voltage components.

And yes, gas cars can explode, etc. I don't mean this as fuel for the gas vs.
electric debate (no pun intended). I hope very much the industry can improve
electrical safety over time. All I'm saying is, never trust Elon Musk PR to
tell you the whole picture.

~~~
agumonkey
About that, do cars attempt to shut down engines, fuel intake and electric
pathways when detecting a collision ? I remember Liquid Gas vehicles having an
emergency outlet to avoid fire/explosions. In Tesla's case that would be
cutting the battery off the circuit and maybe putting it into a 'fast drain'
mode ..

~~~
abalone
You can't just "shut down" electric pathways. Not exactly. There is a manual
cut that first responders need to make to sever the high voltage circuit
before they can work on the car. However there's still capacitors, converters
and the battery itself that remain dangerous especially if they've been
compromised.

As for "fast draining" the battery, where would the power drain to? That's
exactly the problem.. NOT giving the power a path to go when you're working on
the car.

This is not much of an issue with most cars because the electrical systems are
low voltage (12V car battery). With Tesla it's enough to cause major injury or
death with one touch if you complete the circuit.

Watch the video, it explains all this.
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntK3rvVl2Qw](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ntK3rvVl2Qw)

~~~
agumonkey
And I guess it's unrealistic to think of a special draining device to be
brought on crash sites to exhaust the car battery. All in all, are electric
vehicles more 'instable' energy wise when crashed, compared to petroleum based
one ? or is it different flavours of similarly sh*tty situations ?

~~~
jlgreco
85KWh is _a lot_ of energy. Back of the envelope calculations puts that at
enough to boil around one metric ton of water from 25C.[1] If you wanted to
rapidly drain a Tesla you would have to dump that energy somewhere.

That _might_ actually be plausible for firefighters to do[2], but I doubt the
battery itself would withstand being drained anywhere near fast enough for an
emergency situation. It would probably find some interesting way to fail if
you forced it to discharge that fast (bypassing all the safeguards).

[1] 3.06e8 J / (4.181(J/(g * k)) * 75K) = 976,000g ...I probably got that
wrong, it's been a long time.

[2] I mean, their main job _is_ getting rid of large concentrations of heat,
right? ;)

~~~
ErsatzVerkehr
That's the amount of energy needed to bring nearly 1000 kg of water from 25°C
to 100°C, but not enough to begin the phase transition from liquid to gas
(i.e. start boiling).

The heat of vaporization of water (i.e. the amount of energy required to
convert liquid water at 100°C to vapor at the same temperature) is 2260 J/g.
So to completely boil your metric ton of water at 100°C would require an
additional 1000 kg * (2260 J/g) = 2.3 GJ, which is 627 kWh!

At 85 kWh, the Tesla's battery contains enough energy to completely boil off
119 kg of water starting at 25°C [0], which is still pretty impressive!

[0] 85 kWh / ((4.181(J/(g * K)) * 75 K) + (2260 J/g))

~~~
chongli
While that's true, I don't think it's what the parent meant. Colloquially,
when we say _to boil water_ we don't mean _until the vessel is dry_ , just
until a _roiling boil_ is reached (this is typically how we cook pasta).

~~~
ErsatzVerkehr
If the 1000 kg is heated uniformly, this is not enough energy to bring it to a
"roiling boil". There will be no bubbles.

~~~
chongli
Right. It's a good thing stoves/ranges heat from the bottom!

~~~
ErsatzVerkehr
You're forgetting convection.

------
RomP
This is simply unkind to the competition (and to the poles alike): "Tesla
achieved this outcome by nesting multiple deep aluminum extrusions in the side
rail of the car that absorb the impact energy (a similar approach was used by
the Apollo Lunar Lander) and transfer load to the rest of the vehicle. This
causes the pole to be either sheared off or to stop the car before the pole
hits an occupant."

There's winning and there's crushing the opponents. One shouldn't gloat in the
latter case, but this case deserves an exception.

Congratulations Elon and the team on tremendously nice engineering!

~~~
axylone
Here's the video of the Tesla pole test:
[http://youtu.be/_Al3IUHt9Wc?t=32s](http://youtu.be/_Al3IUHt9Wc?t=32s)

Honda Accord for comparison:
[http://youtu.be/ycntFFUfGkU?t=30s](http://youtu.be/ycntFFUfGkU?t=30s)

~~~
mgolawala
Tesla makes an impressive vehicle, but it is unfair to compare a ~$80K machine
to a ~$30K one.

A fairer comparison would be to a BMW 5xx or Mercedes E class. Tesla may still
fair better but not by as huge a margin.

Having said all that... wow, that is a surprisingly huge difference in
results!

~~~
Recoil42
Same test with a Jeep Liberty:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4T1BimfUf4](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4T1BimfUf4)

Lexus RX350:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAz6ZMeIC9s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mAz6ZMeIC9s)

Lexus ES350:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l0o9MTY0JA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4l0o9MTY0JA)

BMW 5-Series:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r20YfGYhvc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-r20YfGYhvc)

Mercedes C-Class:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTkbG64V4tQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zTkbG64V4tQ)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg0ubBqhZjg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sg0ubBqhZjg)

------
kirse
I'm sorry, but as a car enthusiast who spent much of his younger years
devouring every ounce of Road&Track/Car&Driver mags, the phrase "any car ever
tested" is a bit over the top... I'm almost positive the McLaren F1 (a car 20
years older) fared better than the Tesla in safety testing and was capable of
being driven away after the testing finished...

F1 @ 30mph:
[http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v482/Peloton25/McLaren%20F...](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v482/Peloton25/McLaren%20F1%20J/XP2_crash_test.jpg)

F1 @ 40mph:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUPq760LC00](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUPq760LC00)

I'm more than willing to acknowledge Tesla has fantastic results, especially
for the price... but that top spot still belongs to my childhood automotive
idol. ;)

~~~
tankbot
That's amazing! I had no idea the F1 was so sturdy. My assumption (probably
common) is that these super light exotics disintegrate when hitting large
insects, let alone walls.

~~~
gchpaco
Many of them do, although there is the notorious story of an Enzo that got
literally torn in half on CA 1 and both people inside walked away.

~~~
jarek
Here's the story:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Eriksson#Car_crash](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan_Eriksson#Car_crash)

------
callmeed
If you're curious, like I was, about the side pole test, here's a video of the
Tesla:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvH3lysmJA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvH3lysmJA)

Here's a Prius for comparison (4 stars):

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc0uUx2T37k](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc0uUx2T37k)

~~~
Lagged2Death
That's a Prius C, the new super-small one based on the Yaris chassis. Given
its ultra-low-budget roots, four stars is actually really impressive. Yeah,
the Tesla is better, but it's a newer, heavier, and far more expensive design.
It _should be_ better.

~~~
ricardobeat
That fallacy is debunked by every sports car ever.

~~~
sliverstorm
Sports cars have _always_ made sacrifices in this regard. The first being
simply that real sports cars are half the size of a modern saloon, which gives
much less room for crumpling.

~~~
ricardobeat
The fallacious argument is _newer /more expensive = more secure_. Every car
has compromises.

~~~
makomk
Newer, _heavier_ and far more expensive, and of course even that doesn't
guarantee good safety ratings, it just makes it a lot easier to achieve.

------
iandanforth
Favorite quote: "[T]he exact number is uncertain due to Model S breaking the
testing machine"

~~~
ghayes
My favorite was "While this is statistically unlikely to remain the case long
term, Tesla is unaware of any Model S or Roadster occupant fatalities in any
car ever."

~~~
simonb
There aren't that many on the road to begin with. To put this into
perspective: during 1990-1994 there were 5 fatalities in Volvo 240s with
186000 cars on the road
[[http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr3009.pdf](http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr3009.pdf)]

Also the roof holding 4 additional cars, that's cute
[http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/wp-
content/uploads/2011/09/v...](http://www.aronline.co.uk/blogs/wp-
content/uploads/2011/09/volvo-stack-e1314951030869.jpg)

~~~
bdt101
The test machine broke at 4, not the car.

------
unionjack22
"It is possible to game the regulatory testing score to some degree by
strengthening a car at the exact locations used by the regulatory testing
machines. After verifying through internal testing that the Model S would
achieve a NHTSA 5-star rating, Tesla then analyzed the Model S to determine
the weakest points in the car and retested at those locations until the car
achieved 5 stars no matter how the test equipment was configured." \- This is
how you take on the Big Three

~~~
marvin
So, does anyone want to give odds that Tesla will be a disruptive force in the
automotive industry throughout the next decade?

~~~
adwf
Yeah, I remember beign told at the end of the 90's that if you'd bought 100
shares (~$2000) of Microsoft stock at IPO and sold in '99, you'd have cashed
in well over a million dollars.

Tesla gives me that kind of feeling at the moment.

It probably won't be to the same extent as Tesla's market cap is already quite
high. So I can't see them splitting quite as much as MS. But on the other
hand, I think they're definitely a stock to hold on to for quite a while and
see what happens.

~~~
nonchalance
The problem with your thought process is that, unlike microsoft and google or
apple, most traders and analysts already treat the company as if it can do no
wrong. Analysts calling for price targets of 130 or 160 were predicting sales
of 200K+ units per year 2-3 years out, which is a really aggressive target
given the size of the addressable markets. On the other hand, it was only in
2011-2012 that wall street gave Apple its due credit.

Which is not to say that the stock couldn't jump further, but as of now it's
already in the same ballpark as big auto in terms of market cap (as of close
today, Tesla market cap is 17.6B while Ford's market cap is 65B and GM's
market cap is 51B).

~~~
vasilipupkin
the market cap comparison is somewhat misleading because clearly there is
substantial probability of Tesla selling many more cars, once they release
mass market versions. They have created enormous brand value. if they
successfully offer a mass market car, their market cap could easily be higher
than Ford.

------
Bob_Sheep
The crash test results, including the videos, are available here:
[http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+Safety+Ratin...](http://www.safercar.gov/Vehicle+Shoppers/5-Star+Safety+Ratings/2011-Newer+Vehicles/Vehicle-
Detail?vehicleId=7769)

And even more crash test data and videos: [http://www-
nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/testtablede...](http://www-
nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/testtabledetails.aspx?LJC=8308&existphoto=Y&p_tstno=8308&existreport=Y&r_tstno=8308&existvideo=Y&v_tstno=8308&database=v&tstno=8308)
[http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/testtablede...](http://www-
nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/testtabledetails.aspx?LJC=8309&existphoto=Y&p_tstno=8309&existreport=Y&r_tstno=8309&existvideo=Y&v_tstno=8309&database=v&tstno=8309)
[http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/testtablede...](http://www-
nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/database/aspx/vehdb/testtabledetails.aspx?LJC=8310&existphoto=Y&p_tstno=8310&existreport=Y&r_tstno=8310&existvideo=Y&v_tstno=8310&database=v&tstno=8310)

------
dave1619
Elon has mentioned how much they prioritized safety in designing the Model S.
I'm glad to hear that their efforts have paid off.

This is great news for Tesla as it opens their market even larger as the car
can appeal to those seeking safety and not just performance or lower carbon
footprint.

~~~
rdtsc
> Elon has mentioned how much they prioritized safety in designing the Model
> S.

Definitely a smart move. If nothing this gives them a smaller attack surface
against attacks from Tesla's competitors. You can bet they would have attached
like leeches to any minor safety flaw. For example, say, a Tesla car caught on
fire and its batteries ended up electrocuting a fireman -- there would be no
end in sight to the letters to the editor from "concerned citizens" about
fireman's family and how we won't think of his children.

Extra effort for increased safety is definitely worth it, if anything at least
for marketing purposes.

~~~
lsc
>Extra effort for increased safety is definitely worth it, if anything at
least for marketing purposes.

More to the point, traffic deaths are a /real danger/ \- more people are
killed by falling appliances than by terrorism, and we seem to think it's
worth spending huge amounts of money, going to war with the rest of the world,
and giving up many of our own rights to fight terrorism. For most of us?
Terrorism is not a real threat. For most of us, especially us middle-class
Americans, If we die before we get old? there is a pretty large chance that
death will be in a traffic accident. If we want to increase safety, we should
be spending thousands of dollars on auto safety for every dollar we spend
"fighting terrorism"

~~~
lostlogin
I'd sooner spend the money on preventing night time rage from standing on Lego
than on preventing terrorism. So much of the effort is utterly counter
productive. I guess ago safety is probably a better use than my suggestion
though.

------
knowaveragejoe
> The Model S lithium-ion battery did not catch fire at any time before,
> during or after the NHTSA testing. It is worth mentioning that no production
> Tesla lithium-ion battery has ever caught fire in the Model S or Roadster,
> despite several high speed impacts. While this is statistically unlikely to
> remain the case long term, Tesla is unaware of any Model S or Roadster
> occupant fatalities in any car ever.

I can't help but feel this is a bit of a jab at Boeing. :)

~~~
vidarh
It might be, but also consider that lithium-ion batteries do have a
reputation, and catching fire or exploding would be high on the list of things
that anyone wanting to sow doubt about the safety of an electric car might
bring up, so pre-empting it might be worthwhile for that reason too.

~~~
VladRussian2
one can only guess what Airbus sales reps talk about in private with their
potential clients :)

------
turing
_" Of note, during validation of Model S roof crush protection at an
independent commercial facility, the testing machine failed at just above 4
g's. While the exact number is uncertain due to Model S breaking the testing
machine, what this means is that at least four additional fully loaded Model S
vehicles could be placed on top of an owner's car without the roof caving
in."_

I don't have any frame of reference for how this compares to other vehicles,
but damn, that is impressive.

~~~
jlgreco
I wonder what sort of a drop 4g's translates too. It seems to me that the
height you can drop it before the roof caves in is the more important figure,
but I guess it is probably more difficult to accurately run the test that way.

~~~
a-priori
Let's see if I remember my high school physics. Making all sorts of
assumptions and simplifications here:

F = mv / dt (equation of impulse for zero final velocity)

F = mg (newton's laws)

mg = mv/dt

g = v/dt

9.8 = v/0.5

v = 4.9

Therefore, the car can be travelling no more than 4.9m/s at impact to survive.

mgh = 0.5mv^2 (initial gravitational potential energy = kinetic energy at
impact)

gh = 0.5v^2

h = (0.5v^2) / g

h = (0.5 * 4.9 * 4.9) / 9.8

h = 1.225

So, assuming that it takes 0.5 seconds (a wild ass guess) for the car to go
from freefall to rest, the car can withstand a drop of 1.2 metres without
deforming the roof.

Mind you,

~~~
mikeash
Ouch, units, please! Leaving the units out of your physics math is like, well,
not wearing a seat belt when driving a car.

Anyway, I'm afraid that 0.5 seconds to come to rest is way too long. Toss it
into the equations of motion and:

    
    
        d = 1/2 at^2
        d = 1/2 9.8m/s^2 (0.5s)^2
        d = 4.9m
    

In other words, decelerating at 4 gees for half a second means you decelerate
over nearly five meters.

I think we're better off starting at the other end of the stick and making a
wild guess that the roof can move 10cm without being permanently deformed.
Then:

    
    
        d = 1/2 at^2
        0.1m = 1/2 4 * 9.8m/s^2 t^2
        t = 0.0714s
    

To figure out the height, we can notice that a and t will be inversely
proportional for any given velocity (double the time, halve the acceleration
needed), and so, for a given initial or final velocity, the subexpression at^2
is directly proportional to the change in acceleration. In other words, if we
assume that the roof can withstand 10cm of deflection, you can drop the car
from 40cm up.

~~~
a-priori
Thanks, much appreciated. Sorry about the lack of units. If it's any
consolation, I included them in the text surrounding the calculations. :)

------
ra88it
Elon Musk clearly writes these things himself. That, or he's got a bunch of
other folks like him working at Tesla.

Either way, it's exciting times. It's fun to be inspired by a company. To find
something that keeps getting _better_ as it unfolds...

~~~
OGC
> Elon Musk clearly writes these things himself.

What the fuck? Get a grip, PR is _an_ industry.

~~~
ra88it
You're right - that phrasing is sloppy. I'm sure there's a kick-ass PR team
behind this.

But it smells different than normal PR. It actually contains surprises and a
conversational tone and it reminds me of Musk himself. Giving an interview,
for instance.

This could be me projecting onto it, or maybe Musk really does drive PR more
than you'd expect for a company at this stage. Or maybe his team is able to
pull this off on their own. Either way it's fun to watch.

------
ChuckMcM
Very impressive. One really cannot over stress that there is a lot of car that
you "don't need" in the front and back if you don't have a big engine but
using it for energy absorption is a certainly valid use. So far the only
complaints my friends have had with their cars has been the "constant" updates
to the software.

~~~
spullara
I can't believe people would complain about the updates to the software. They
are more rare than iPhone dot releases and come with real benefits. Maybe they
were pulling your chain.

~~~
ilyanep
What kind of updates come in Tesla software releases, and also how do they get
into the car? I've actually never thought about this at all.

~~~
spullara
You get all the updates over the provided 3G connection the car has included.
Here are some of the release notes:

[http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showwiki.php?title=Model+S+so...](http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showwiki.php?title=Model+S+software+firmware+changelog)

I started with 4.2 and am on 4.5 now.

------
sbierwagen
It helps that it weighs 4,600 pounds. (More than a thousand pounds heavier
than the Volvo S60 they compare it to.) Heavier vehicles always do better--
which is why SUVs survive crashes so well.

~~~
corresation
What is the calculated correlation between NHTSA vehicle safety score and
vehicle weight. I don't know this, but suspect that it is a less significant
factor than you imply. Add that the Tesla is 1000lbs+ of battery.

Safety is engineering and materials. More materials help, of course, but more
materials without the engineering simply equals more kinetic energy. There are
vehicles from big SUVs to tiny SMART cars doing superbly on crash tests now.

~~~
sbierwagen
Amusing that you mention the Smart Fortwo.

[http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr041409.html](http://www.iihs.org/news/rss/pr041409.html)

    
    
      ARLINGTON, VA — Three front-to-front crash tests, each 
      involving a microcar or minicar into a midsize model from 
      the same manufacturer, show how extra vehicle size and 
      weight enhance occupant protection in collisions. These 
      Insurance Institute for Highway Safety tests are about the 
      physics of car crashes, which dictate that very small cars 
      generally can't protect people in crashes as well as 
      bigger, heavier models.
    
      "There are good reasons people buy minicars," says 
      Institute president Adrian Lund. "They're more affordable, 
      and they use less gas. But the safety trade-offs are clear 
      from our new tests. Equally clear are the implications when 
      it comes to fuel economy. If automakers downsize cars so 
      their fleets use less fuel, occupant safety will be 
      compromised. However, there are ways to serve fuel economy 
      and safety at the same time."
    

[http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/808569.pdf‎](http://www-
nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/808569.pdf‎)

    
    
      Large vehicles have historically been more stable and 
      provided more protection for their own
      occupants than small ones, but they presented a greater 
      hazard to other road users. Between 1985
      and 1993, the population of light trucks - pickups, sport 
      utility vehicles (SUV) and vans - increased
      by 50 percent in the United States. Since the major 
      downsizing of passenger cars during 1975-82,
      light trucks have had a substantial and growing weight 
      advantage over cars. By 1992, the number
      of fatalities in collisions between cars and light trucks 
      exceeded the number in car-to-car collisions
      In car-light truck collisions, 80 percent of the fatalities 
      are occupants of the cars. That raises the
      question whether the growth in the number and weight of 
      light trucks is having an adverse impact
      on the safety of passenger car occupants and other road 
      users, possibly exceeding any safety benefits
      of the vehicle-weight increases for the occupants of the 
      trucks.
    

Vehicle safety is complicated, obviously, and vehicle weight isn't the only
variable of merit, obviously. (See [http://energy.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/aps-
ppt-wenzel.pdf‎](http://energy.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/aps-ppt-wenzel.pdf‎) )

But all things being equal, in a head on collision between two identical
vehicles, save that one weighs a thousand pounds more than the other, the
heavier car is going to win.

~~~
corresation
_But all things being equal_

Rater irrational requirement, given that we're talking about engineering. It
short circuits the entire conversation.

In any case, I find it odd that you find my reference of the Smart "humorous".
While the IIHS held their results as demonstrating bigger versus smaller, in
actual reality it primarily demonstrated _more expensive versus less
expensive_ \-- there is no great confusion that less expensive cars often
sacrificed safety, and this was true at all vehicle sizes (e.g. some early
budget Kia minivans and SUVs were deathtraps). It seems to have mostly passed
now that even economical cars like the Cruze are posting stellar results.

But let's assume that a greater weight, by itself, equals better safety. So
would that Volvo do better than the Tesla if they filled the trunk full of
concrete blocks?

Note that I didn't say that weight doesn't correlate with safety, but that it
doesn't correlate nearly as strongly as you seem to imply -- e.g. saying that
a large sedan is 1000lbs heavier than another large sedan in no way, I would
guess, leads to a conclusion that it will also do better in safety tests.

------
nonchalance
Isn't this old news? ([http://www.treehugger.com/cars/tesla-model-s-
gets-5-star-saf...](http://www.treehugger.com/cars/tesla-model-s-gets-5-star-
safety-rating-every-category-after-nhtsa-crash-tests.html) was posted two
weeks ago: [http://www.treehugger.com/cars/tesla-model-s-gets-5-star-
saf...](http://www.treehugger.com/cars/tesla-model-s-gets-5-star-safety-
rating-every-category-after-nhtsa-crash-tests.html))

~~~
rplnt
Should be, as these test are done before they can enter the market.

~~~
schiffern
Nope. These tests were done in July 2013, but deliveries started June 2012.

5-stars across the board is old news (lots of cars achieve that), but the fact
that it's the safest car tested is new.

------
jlgreco
_" the front section that would normally contain a gasoline engine is used for
a second trunk."_

I guess somebody has veto'd "frunk". Oh well.

~~~
tjmc
In the UK & Australia it would be a "froot".

~~~
kibibu
Or a "hat"

------
bocalogic
I am really proud of Elon and his crew.

For someone who has made a first pass at making a car he sure has set the bar
very high. The performance, quality and safety of this vehicle show that
anything is possible.

However, on the flip side, it shows how uncompetitive the U.S. market has
become. It takes vast sums of money to compete with the big 3.

I look forward to Elon pushing the limits in space and with the hyperloop.

------
blsci
Is there an automotive safety engineer in the room? I'd be eager to get expert
commentary on these results.

The safety test results sound amazing. Tesla is also strong in the marketing
department.

Just trying to maintain healthy skepticism. These results seem very exciting.

------
Uchikoma
Tesla S is an excellent car. Loved it when I sat in one.

What came to light in Germany some years ago, with a heated discussion, is
that automotive companies seem to optimize their cars towards specific tests.
The discussion raged around what tests are more realistic, with those that let
the car makers look bad (foreign tests) being "not realistic".

------
X-Istence
The way cars collapse and fall apart at crashes is absolutely amazing. Just
over 30 days ago I was involved in a head on collision with a Nissan Titan
full-size pickup truck WITH cargo in the bed, and walked away from an accident
the EMT's, fire fighters, and police all told me it was almost impossible I
did. The adjuster didn't believe me when I told him the state of the car, but
when he did go out to check it out he called me and asked me if I was sure I
was alright...

Here are pictures: [http://imgur.com/a/nIMOP#0](http://imgur.com/a/nIMOP#0)

I was driving 20 Mph, turning left at a traffic light, the pickup truck was
driving (according to the driver) 45 - 50 Mph, although the adjuster and off-
duty police suggest he may have been driving faster.

\---

One thing I will note though, my car is significantly cheaper than the
Tesla... and fares extremely well in the NHTSA tests.

------
sixQuarks
There have been several real-world crashes of the Tesla S, and none, as far as
I know, have resulted in any injuries to the driver.

One was even a head on crash at fairly high speeds which killed the other
vehicle's driver. The Tesla S driver walked away. Tesla never fails to amaze
me.

~~~
philip1209
Source on the head-on crash story?

~~~
schiffern
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtgTcoT1yRo](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QtgTcoT1yRo)

------
tocomment
I've always found the star safety ratings confusing especially when I've
noticed compact cars getting the same stars as large cars.

I'd like to just see each model ranked by number of fatalities per mile
driven. Wouldn't that make a lot more sense?

Is such a statistic available anywhere?

~~~
tlb
They exist [1] but can be misleading because different kinds of people buy
different kinds of vehicles. So muscle cars and 4x4s have higher crash rates
than minivans and economy sedans mainly because of the people that drive them.

[1]
[http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4204.pdf](http://www.iihs.org/externaldata/srdata/docs/sr4204.pdf)

~~~
tocomment
Thanks! I guess you could still use it to compare between say minivans?

------
jchrisa
How do pedestrians fare when hit by a Tesla? I'll save my cheering for when
they have a self driving one so I no longer have to worry about drunk or
distracted drivers.

~~~
mzs
My guess is they would do pretty well. There is not a rigid engine right under
the hood, the wipers mounts seem well protected under the hood, and no other
protrusions really in the front. Euro NCAP provided pedestrian safety results,
but the site does not work for me from here. You can go see if you want though
if there is anything for the Tesla Model S there.

------
nraynaud
Here in Europe we use EuroNCAP, do you have any news about a testing by this
laboratory? Google doesn't yield any interesting result.

~~~
kmfrk
I was in a European Tesla retailer this month or the last, and the person told
me that no tests NCAP test had been made at the time.

~~~
nraynaud
it makes sense, but do they plan to make some?

~~~
kmfrk
I think they'd have to, once they set up Supercharger stations and go for the
European market.

------
DavidWanjiru
Is there not a way an emergency responder, or anyone else for that matter,
could fully discharge a battery like the one on a Tesla? As ask coz back in
the day before digital cameras became mainstream, we used to repair point and
shoot cameras at the photo processing lab where I worked. A point and shoot
camera has a capacitor for the flash that can give you a short but not
insignificant shock, and to avoid it, we'd take a normal light bulb and use it
to discharge the capacitor. I realize a cap batteries stores a lot more power,
but couldn't some mechanism be built that does the same thing?

------
ciwk
"While the exact number is uncertain due to Model S breaking the testing
machine, what this means is that at least four additional fully loaded Model S
vehicles could be placed on top of an owner's car without the roof caving in."

jeez.

couple that with this and it's safe to say these have been a good couple of
months for tesla [http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/05/video-the-
te...](http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/05/video-the-tesla-model-
s-is-our-top-scoring-car/index.htm)

------
philfreo
> Of note, during validation of Model S roof crush protection at an
> independent commercial facility, the testing machine failed at just above 4
> g's. While the exact number is uncertain due to Model S breaking the testing
> machine, what this means is that at least four additional fully loaded Model
> S vehicles could be placed on top of an owner's car without the roof caving
> in. This is achieved primarily through a center (B) pillar reinforcement
> attached via aerospace grade bolts.

lol, they broke the testing machine

------
TallboyOne
How can I buy one of these? Is there a huge wait time?

And how does the performance compare to a regular consumer-level luxury
'sports car' like an audi?

~~~
spullara
From lowest end to highest end, the wait time is 3, 2 and 1 month. It crushes
my old 911 C4.

------
lnanek2
Seems a little disingenuous to bring up better rating than SUVs. SUVs of the
same rating as cars still have a 4.5 times better survivability rate. The
rating is for comparing similar cars hitting each other. A comparatively light
and low to the ground car is not going to fare well vs. a heavy, higher off
the ground SUV. That's just simple physics.

------
D_Alex
Okay, I am convinced this car is superb. How about we... build more of them?
There is a Ford factory here in Australia that is due to be shut down in 2
years, it could be converted, and us Aussies would love to be able to buy this
car. I personally promise to buy one if it is built here. The Aussie
government might chip in as well.

~~~
eru
Scaling up quality is not trivial. You can bet they are working on it.

~~~
MPSimmons
I'm willing to bet that you've nailed the exact reason he's not doing SpaceX
exclusively yet.

------
gz5
Love it when the goal is to be better than the best, nothing less is
tolerated, and the engineering makes it so.

------
so898
Maybe they should find someone try to hack into the system. I believe this
computer based car will have the same virus problem as PC. If it has function
to connect the internet via wireless network, things might be worse...

------
TeMPOraL
That's what you get when you think about your product first, and profit
second. Musk wants to give the world a great car, not to make profit on cars.
This breeds quality we see.

------
thufry
The Tesla is a great car but it's absolutely insane that American taxpayers
are donating $7500 to allow rich people to buy $75,000 luxury cars.

------
ultimatedelman
_The graphic below shows the statistical Relative Risk Score (RSS)_

I do not think that acronym means what you think it means.

~~~
loceng
Well, they probably won't win out against the whole of the geeky internet.

------
njharman
> While the exact number is uncertain due to Model S breaking the testing
> machine...

The tone of this press release is perfect.

------
DonGateley
I keep fearing this guy is going to pull a John Gault on us. He's the closest
thing to an Ayn Rand character I've seen in my lifetime. Too close for
comfort.

Atlas Shrugged came out when I was entering high school and almost ruined me
according to my dad back then (and he was a republican.) :-)

------
coin
At $70,000+, it's still out of reach for most people.

------
alexeisadeski3
Misleading title.

------
thiagoperes
Elon is on a roll

------
constapop
Here are videos of model s crash tests:

Frontal - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz2FMfv-
CSc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dz2FMfv-CSc)

Pole -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Al3IUHt9Wc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Al3IUHt9Wc)

Side -
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNyjiFmjfxw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNyjiFmjfxw)

------
OGC
The lack of critism in this thread is astounding.

~~~
gargoiler00
HN has a raging hard-on for tesla. It's not surprising, but I agree it's
ridiculously one sided here.

Personally, I hope Tesla fail, and think they will.

~~~
eru
Why do you hope for that?

~~~
gargoiler00
Firstly, I don't believe electric cars are a good idea. Secondly, I absolutely
hate the idea of cars so dependent on electronics and software.

My neighbour has an old dumper truck he lets me use, probably 50 or 60 years
old. It starts every time, first time. There is literally nothing to go wrong
on it.

Now contrast that with a modern car, where you need special tools to access
the electronics unlock diagnostics. What about when cars have auto update
software over wifi? What about when the government forces car makers to embed
their own tracking software into them to monitor and spy on civilians.

Tesla isn't quite as bad as the idiotic self drive cars Google is pressing for
(So they can drive you to a google advertiser), but they're in the same bucket
of nastiness.

~~~
eru
Thanks for answering. I respectfully disagree, but we can still have a
civilized conversation.

> My neighbour has an old dumper truck he lets me use, probably 50 or 60 years
> old. It starts every time, first time. There is literally nothing to go
> wrong on it.

I guess apart from modern safety features and gas guzzling?

> What about when the government forces car makers to embed their own tracking
> software into them to monitor and spy on civilians.

Not necessary. People already carry cell phones.

I am actually looking forward to the self driving cars. Human error causes
lots of accidents. But then, I don't own a car and probably never will.

------
spajus
Sorry for the sarcasm, but could it be because it runs out of batteries before
hitting the test wall? :)

