
Tesla crash after flying 82 feet in the air shows importance of a crumple zone - vinnyglennon
http://electrek.co/2016/05/06/tesla-model-s-crash-large-crumple-zone-gallery/
======
reitanqild
Tangentially related but the comments are the best part IMO:

> Anton Korn 2 days ago

> I believe that there should be some sort of a software based limit on the
> maximum acceleration for new or unexperienced drivers.

> No 18 year old should be given the option to drive a supercar. it is just
> too dangerous.

>> Kerry Manning > Anton Korn 2 days ago

>> I believe that the software has been around for quite a while. It is an
advanced neural network commonly referred to as "a parent". :)

>>> Going Knightly > Kerry Manning a day ago

>>> Said software, unfortunately, only controls the vehicle as long as the
drivers are within observational range. Once the vehicle leaves said range,
the software is defunct and is running on the backup operating system "Wishful
Thinking 2.0".

>>>> Kerry Manning > Going Knightly a day ago

>>>> Actually parenting is more about teaching your kids to do the responsible
thing when nobody is watching. Without that it's not "parenting" it's
"babysitting"

~~~
jrcii
>software based limit on the maximum acceleration

That strikes me as a bad idea. There are scenarios where you need to
accelerate your car as quickly as possible to move out of the way of danger or
avoid an accident.

~~~
ygra
And how frequent are those situations compared to those where people
accelerate too quickly and lose control of their car? That's like the argument
that seatbelts are dangerous or lethal in some situations. Sure they are. But
in all other situations they save lives and reduce injuries.

~~~
jrcii
Possibly more frequent, though neither of us have data. Driving at too high a
cruising speed to have adequate reaction time is common, I've never known
anyone to crash a car because they lost control during acceleration
(motorcycles yes). In contrast, based on my admittedly anecdotal experiences,
it's common to accelerate to avoid someone who, for instance, ran a red light
or stop sign.

~~~
ygra
Ok, phrased misleadingly, I guess. My thought was more along the line of »How
frequently would I need to speed up to avoid something instead of slowing
down?« – generally it doesn't seem wise to me to add more energy to a
situation and so far I haven't come across a situation where slowing down
wasn't an appropriate response (granted, something heavy coming up fast from
behind is an issue, but that also only helps if there's nothing in the front
to speed into).

Anecdotal as well, also with a huge grain of salt, considering that despite
being somewhat old, I'm only allowed to drive since December. To other drivers
I'm probably overly cautious, I guess.

------
sandworm101
(1) "It takes a lot of speed to flip a 5,000 lbs Model S with a low center of
gravity."

No it does not. Once a car is off road, on non-level ground or as in this case
flying, it can roll at any speed. Push a Ferrari off a cliff and it might
roll, flip and do somersaults no matter its centre of gravity.

(2) That car shows a very bad sign: impacts on both front an rear. That means
multiple impacts separated by some period of time. The problem with airbags is
that they can only deploy once. Same too for crumple zones. What saved these
kids was most likely the seatbelts, the only safety feature that remains
functional after the initial impact. This is why I am against the new trend of
shock-absorbing seatbelts with stitched expansion zones, what rock climbers
might call screamers. They don't work twice.

Forget the fancy safety features. The humble belt is more important than all
of them put together. If you are going to roll a car, A good seat and a
5-point restraint is better than a hundred airbags.

~~~
tempestn
> Forget the fancy safety features. The humble belt is more important than all
> of them put together.

Totally agree with the second sentence, but disagree with the first. It's not
like these features are just thrown in for fun; there is research and testing
behind them, and they do save lives.

It's like that oft-misquoted statistic that you lose 50% of your body heat
through your head. In reality that's only true if you cover the rest of your
body with clothes, but leave your head bare. Obviously wearing clothes is
going to keep you warmer than wearing a hat. But, if it's cold out, it does
make sense to put a hat on too.

~~~
zamalek
> It's not like these features are just thrown in for fun; there is research
> and testing behind them, and they do save lives.

Exactly, but some of them are designed to be paired with a seat belt - I've
heard that airbags _can_ make things worse if you don't buckle up.

~~~
dsfyu404ed
The NHTSA has a few videos showing exactly this.

------
Colin_M
"SpaceX successfully recovers teens after launch"

~~~
Frenchgeek
Electric rockets still have a long way to go...

~~~
qb45
There is actually a thing called ion thrusters, which use propellant only as
reactive mass and consume electricity for energy, but they are too weak for
use in Earth-launched rockets.

------
krschultz
Not to be taken as a knock on Tesla, but from snowboarding I've learned the
pain is not in the distance you fly, but the sudden stop at the end. Tumbling
across an empty field is about the best case scenario. An unfortunately placed
tree would be fatal at half that speed.

~~~
Rapzid
Yes, I wonder if the front end "crumpled" or merely fell apart. Was there a
front end impact?

~~~
ams6110
Exactly my question: what did it hit? It's sitting in a flat dirt field. Maybe
it nose-dived into the ground? But I didn't even really see evidence of that
from the photos.

~~~
rtnyftxx
she didnt caught the curve then the car rolled over.

Position
[https://www.google.de/maps/place/47%C2%B058'12.1%22N+11%C2%B...](https://www.google.de/maps/place/47%C2%B058'12.1%22N+11%C2%B026'41.1%22E/@47.9700384,11.4426992,1153m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d47.970035!4d11.444762?hl=de)

cars direction north east to the yellow street 11

this dead outlet [https://electrek.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/tesla-crash-
ram...](https://electrek.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/tesla-crash-ramp-
germany.jpg?w=590&h=393)

is this here
[https://www.google.de/maps/place/47%C2%B058'12.5%22N+11%C2%B...](https://www.google.de/maps/place/47%C2%B058'12.5%22N+11%C2%B026'42.5%22E/@47.97014,11.442942,981m/data=!3m2!1e3!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d47.97014!4d11.445136?hl=de)

~~~
egeozcan
Is it my brain playing games or do I really see misplaced tire tracks on
Google Maps?

------
ascorbic
Not quite on topic, but this headline is a good example of false precision in
converted units. Did they precisely measure it to the foot? Of course they
didn't. The article makes it clear it's 25 metres, which is probably an
estimate within 5-10 metres. 80 feet would have been a more helpful
conversion.

~~~
cbd1984
"Hey, 98.6, it's good to have you back again... "

One of the best-known numbers in biology came about due to a similar confusion
over significant figures:

> The first systematic measurements of human body temperature were performed
> by the German physician Carl Wunderlich. In 1861 he measured the
> temperatures of one million healthy individuals (a sample size that seems
> too large to be believed). The average value was reported as 37 degrees
> celsius. When converted this value becomes 98.6 degreed fahrenheit. So
> what's the problem? Wunderlich's value has only two significant figures
> while the converted value has three. The last digit (the "point six" at the
> end) should be regarded with great suspicion. Wunderlich's converted value
> should really be stated as "ninety eight point something" if one is being
> honest.

Actually, if one is being honest and respecting the usual rules, it should be
stated as 99°F; that is, rounded to two significant figures.

(And, of course, we're not that simple: Core body temperature rises and falls
naturally due to a number of factors even when we're completely healthy, so
any single number as "the" healthy body temperature is, strictly, incorrect.)

[http://hypertextbook.com/facts/LenaWong.shtml](http://hypertextbook.com/facts/LenaWong.shtml)

~~~
pauljohncleary
> Wunderlich's converted value should really be stated as "ninety eight point
> something" if one is being honest.

or we could, you know, agree on a standard and just use that...

~~~
scotchmi_st
Or you could, you know, use Celsius like the rest of the world... ;)

~~~
pauljohncleary
I'm from the rest of the world and I do ;-)

------
avar
I suppose it doesn't matter much in practice because few things have the
density of an engine block, but I wonder if the Tesla is crash tested with
luggage in the frunk, or always with it empty.

People are going to be putting stuff into the frunk, even stuff that may be
really solid and pointy and likely to breach into the cabin in the event of a
crash.

Is it especially armored to deal with those situations? Or should Tesla owners
generally keep it empty if they're concerned with safety?

~~~
jsolson
> People are going to be putting stuff into the frunk, even stuff that may be
> really solid and pointy and likely to breach into the cabin in the event of
> a crash.

Others may have different practices, but for my wife and I we put very little
there. The trunk is quite spacious. We keep a small emergency kit and an
autosock[0] in the frunk but otherwise it's generally empty. On the rare
occasions when we've used it on road trips the geometry has always made it
most convenient to fill the frunk with winter coats and other soft goods that
pack well into arbitrarily shaped spaces.

[0]: [http://autosock.us/](http://autosock.us/)

~~~
lancefisher
Have you used the autosock? How well did it work? Looks like a nice
alternative to chains.

~~~
jsolson
Not yet -- I carry it because I'm required to have chains or an equivalent
(the autosock counts) in the vehicle when driving into the mountains in
Washington state and British Columbia during winter. Since the Tesla (P85D) is
all wheel drive I'm not actually required to _use_ the equivalent as long as I
have M+S rated tires on the car.

For the past couple winters conditions have not demanded anything beyond the
AWD and the tires. This is also an unfortunate commentary on the snow
situation for the last couple winters.

I picked the autosock over chains as the Tesla owners manual advises against
most change due to risk of damaging the wheel wells and body. There is
apparently at least one model they've approved, which I'll likely invest in
the first time the autosock proves itself not up the task and forces me to
turn back from a ski weekend.

~~~
copperx
Do they really check every car, one by one, to make sure they have all the
required equipment? Sounds time intensive.

~~~
cmurf
California yes, sometimes, I've been in such a tediously long line for 1/2" of
snow on the road, it was absurd. Colorado, only if you're in an accident does
it come up. So from one extreme to another. No idea about other states.

~~~
danellis
It's not so much about how much snow is on the ground, but how much might
quickly fall while you're up there.

------
samch
Having been in a couple of rough accidents in my life, I thought it was pretty
stunning that the frame of the passenger compartment was durable enough that
the occupants were simply able to open the doors to get out. From what I've
been witness to, often the frame and doors bend enough in a big wreck to make
it difficult to exit the vehicle. The photos showing the front two doors open
with all of the glass intact are quite impressive.

~~~
userbinator
This is apparently not uncommon for Volvos either:

[http://www.car-
accidents.com/pages/accident_story/11-11-04.h...](http://www.car-
accidents.com/pages/accident_story/11-11-04.html)

~~~
dclowd9901
Volvo pillars are apparently so strong that emergency crews have to carry
special equipment to cut them if needed:
[http://www.fullerroadfire.com/TrainingAndEducation/Universit...](http://www.fullerroadfire.com/TrainingAndEducation/UniversityOfExtrication/UniversityOfExtricationAll.pdf)

~~~
X-Istence
Interesting, here is an older article that shows the same is true for
Subaru's:
[http://moojohn.com/subaru/extract.pdf](http://moojohn.com/subaru/extract.pdf)

~~~
userbinator
That extra surprise stub of rebar welded into the middle is funny, it was
probably a quick "hack" to pass some test that turned out cheaper than
redesigning the whole thing.

------
userbinator
I find it more amazing the side windows are still intact, and the roof is also
amazingly clean for a vehicle that is said to have rolled over "at least once"
in a field.

~~~
Pxtl
A notoriously heavy and bottom-heavy vehicle at that. I would not want to be
caught upside down in one of those, knowing that there is a tonne or so of
batteries trying to crush me.

~~~
toomuchtodo
1\. You wouldn't be caught upside down in it. Tesla was unable to flip the
Model X in testing [1] (I assume the Model S is even harder to flip). The
advantages of having an extremely low center of gravity due to the battery
pack (coming in at 1323 lbs).

2\. Reinforced pillars. Their strength is such that they damaged the device
used to test roof failures [2] (I believe the force the roof was subjected to
was equivalent to 5 Model S' atop the test vehicle). I'm confident that in the
extremely unlikely event the vehicle was upside down, you would walk away from
the vehicle, roof intact.

3\. A tweet describing the safety of Tesla vehicles:
[https://twitter.com/NickatFP/status/706845770486407168](https://twitter.com/NickatFP/status/706845770486407168)

[1] [http://electrek.co/2016/03/07/tesla-flip-model-x-crash-
tests...](http://electrek.co/2016/03/07/tesla-flip-model-x-crash-tests-
safety/)

[2] [http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/videos/a5238/watch-
the-...](http://www.roadandtrack.com/new-cars/videos/a5238/watch-the-tesla-
model-s-break-the-nhtsa-crash-test-scale/)

~~~
userbinator
_I believe the force the roof was subjected to was equivalent to 5 Model S '
atop the test vehicle_

Tesla should start doing ads like this:

[http://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/04/19...](http://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-
content/uploads/2012/04/1971-market-for-a-hardtop-ad.jpg)

[https://d37nk263jfz2p8.cloudfront.net/image/1/700/0/uploads/...](https://d37nk263jfz2p8.cloudfront.net/image/1/700/0/uploads/posts/2015/09/ebf4e54f-7b56-4989-8a82-300f16793680.jpg)

------
lostmsu
Is it here because of that Tesla hipe? Tens of cars per year probably crumple
just like this Model S, but there are (rightfully) no articles on HN or other
IT web sites about that.

~~~
mulcahey
Though of course we can't run an exact experiment, the premise is that the
occupants would have seen much worse injuries had it been an average car
without the saftey ratings of the Model S.

~~~
ck2
Tesla should go buy a regular gas car and drive it off that ramp at the same
approximate speed and film it for publicity.

I'm genuinely curious.

------
aidos
It's with some irony that the ads I see on that page are for Vauxhall.

I can't zoom in because I'm on a mobile but the final picture looks like it
has the vehicle off in the distance. If so, I can't believe how far off the
road it is - it must have really been moving at the time. Does it have
telemetry data they can use post accident to figure out speeds and things?

~~~
mschuster91
> Does it have telemetry data they can use post accident to figure out speeds
> and things?

I would be surprised if not.

The problem is that unlike years ago, the cops can now use the data of your
own car to screw you over for speeding, improper turns, running red lights...
and insurances already offer heavy discounts to those who let themselves be
data mined for every meter they drive.

Hello 1984.

~~~
karyon
could you expand on in how far this is a problem? i must say i'm glad there's
finally no way of talking out of it, if the data says you did it wrong, then
you most likely did it wrong and the cops should make you pay money or jail
time, shouldn't they? no matter whose data it was.

even if there is something like a chilling effect, if it prevents people from
speeding and running red lights, that sounds pretty cool to me.

insurances are another matter. although we probably disagree over that as
well, it's certainly (even) more debatable.

~~~
lobotryas
Ok, but where do you draw the line? In CA the speed limit is usually 65.
Should I get automatically fined the moment I go from 65 to 66?

How do you distinguish between reckless speeding and overtaking a slow-moving
vehicle by using the fast lane? What about real emergencies where you speed to
get your wife to the hospital because her water just broke, she is in pain and
there is no time to wait for an ambulance?

There are many variables to consider. I hope such omni-present telemetry never
comes to pass. I'd rather people have more freedom than for the state to try
and create a rubber-covered world where everything is safe. Heck, I'm even
worried about self driving cars because I know someone with good intentions
will propose we outlaw manual driving "for the greater good".

~~~
karyon
The question of where to draw the line does not come with more telemetry data
collected by cars. If you would deploy lots of speed traps everywhere, you'd
have a similar situation.

Overtaking a slow-moving vehicle does probably not allow you to ignore speed
limits. And I'm pretty sure you _are_ allowed to ignore speed limits to a
certain extend in case of emergencies. I don't want the car to enforce the
speed limit by itself, and even if, you could solve that by an "emergency
button" of some sort. You'd need to justify it's use when asked by the cops of
course.

I also do value freedom and think that absolute safety is not something
desirable, but considering the tens of thousands of traffic deaths each year,
people apparently abuse their freedom in traffic and we do need more safety
there.

~~~
y04nn
What happens if you have to speed up suddenly to avoid an accident? Do you
have the time to push an emergency button? I don't think so.

------
lancefisher
It looks like it flipped end over end with the front taking most of the
impact, then the rear being crushed on the flip. The cabin must be extremely
solid since the windows are still intact.

------
frik
More interesting would be a crash against a tree or a concrete pillar - then
one could argue if the crumble zone of a Tesla S is better compared to a
traditional superior class Volvo or Mercedes with a front motor. Ignoring the
videos of certificated crash test, the Tesla S doesn't look that special:
[https://www.youtube.com/results?q=tesla%20crash](https://www.youtube.com/results?q=tesla%20crash)
and even in certificated tests it isn't in the top range:
[http://www.euroncap.com](http://www.euroncap.com)

~~~
TwoBit
The European tests include other things unrelated to a car's front crash
results, and even include things unrelated to the car itself, such as
potential damage to pedestrians.

~~~
frik
Each result is shown separately, how about looking at the crash results score
and read the detailed information. Your comment makes no sense. Anyway, it's
better to watch real world videos too, how those cars perform in real crashes
- as several car manufacturers designed their cars especially for common crash
tests which mean little in real world crashes, if you don't hit the other
object in the same angle.

------
roflchoppa
Yeah every time I get into my car from 1972 I think, " I'd o hit something
this steering rack is going into my face"

~~~
derFunk
First thing you should do with an Old-timer like this is replacing the
original steering rack with a collapsible one, because like you said, it would
perforate your head or torso on a front crash.

~~~
userbinator
A car from 1972 should have that already. From
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steering_wheel#Passenger_cars](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steering_wheel#Passenger_cars)

"In 1968, United States regulations (FMVSS Standard No. 204) were implemented
concerning the acceptable rearward movement of the steering wheel in case of
crash.[13] Collapsible steering columns were required to meet that standard."

------
james_pm
Crumple zones are all good, but why would you put that kind of power in the
hands of an inexperienced and risk-happy 18-year-old driver? Looks like this
was a P model (red calipers) which also means it has Ludicrous mode.

Perhaps Tesla could offer some innovation in the form of a de-tuned mode that
triggers in the absence of a certain set of keys or pin entry.

~~~
hartator
You have to start driving sometimes anyway, but yeah probabaly not a +$100k
car.

~~~
CapitalistCartr
A minivan for two years. They're safe. Then, after a couple years and their
first crash, they can move up. But rich parents often aren't willing to
"deprive" their children.

~~~
trgn
It's totally true, we totally expect young drivers to wreck a car early in
their driving careers, and they often do, and we're totally fine with it, it's
part of the course.

That mindset strikes me as completely insane to be honest (btw, I damaged my
parent's car as well in my first year of driving).

Why not something like that you have to start driving for a few years with a
small car (like a kei-car of some sorts), and then you can graduate to a
compact. And then after six years or so, you can drive something heavy and/or
fast. I would be so much more at ease in traffic, knowing that those deathtrap
crossovers, trucks, and SUVs around me aren't piloted by a texting teenager.

~~~
goodcanadian
Yeah, to paraphrase my mother, "If I thought you were going to crash it, I
wouldn't let you drive it."

I actually learned to drive first on a ride-on lawn mower when I was barely
heavy enough to keep the dead man switch active: hit a bump and the mower
would switch off. Then I graduated to ATVs and finally to the farm pick-up
truck when I was 12 or so. By the time I had a license, I was a quite capable
and reasonably safe driver. Honestly, I think it may be best to learn before
you are a teenager when you are still scared of the big machines.

~~~
trgn
that sounds like a great way to learn how to drive

------
Overtonwindow
My 1998 Escort Zx2 had a gap between the bumper and the engine of about a foot
that came in handy during a read ending. I think crumble zones of empty
plastic are a great idea, and wish they'd install more of those on cars. It
dissipates energy and potentially saves the car from what would otherwise be a
car-destroying accident.

~~~
rfeather
I can attest to the other side of that. My 2000 Cavalier was totalled after I
rear ended someone at < 20 MPH. Apparently all of the impact went straight
into the radiator.

However, in my subsequent two cars I was rear ended and in both cases, while
the cars were pretty ugly, they were driveable.

------
benaston
This is not journalism. It is a (likely paid for) ad for Tesla.

------
flyinghamster
My parents survived a head-on collision in a 1965 Corvair vs. an out-of-
control Camaro, with minor injuries, thanks to the trunk being in front. The
trunk was just about obliterated, but the passenger compartment was not
compromised. Had they been in a Chevy Vega, Ford Pinto, or other '60s/'70s-era
small car, they would have likely been maimed or killed.

As far as I'm concerned, the second-generation Corvair was considerably safer
than typical small cars of the era; the trunk was large, the gas tank was
behind the front axle, and the first-generation Corvair's swing axle rear
suspension was superseded by a fully-independent design.

I'd feel safer even in a first-generation Corvair than in a classic VW Beetle.
F*ck Nader.

------
ck2
Yes, give an 18 year old a car that can accelerate that fast.

Tesla should make a "teenage driving mode" the parent can set.

So if there had been a huge heavy engine in the front, they probably would
have been eating it with a front impact that hard?

~~~
y04nn
There already is a Valet Mode that limit the power and the maximum speed.

------
chx
Crumple zones even in much crappier cars are a blessing. My brother was once
not given the right of way while he was driving a VW Polo (OK, Skoda Fabia,
same car). The front of the car after looked like that Tesla but he could kick
the door open (it was a little stuck) and get out. It's literally life and
death. If Tesla is even better, I hope the next time a family member gets in
an accident it'll be in a Tesla. That sentence probably sells cars.

~~~
ivraatiems
Crumple zones tend to be built to safety standards regardless of the car's
fanciness. AFAIK, even cheapo modern cars have immensely advanced safety
features.

~~~
chx
This was close to 20 years now, how time flies... but yeah.

------
ccvannorman
Anybody else notice that 82 feet ~= 25 meters, an approximate figure guessed
by the original reporters who use the metric system? We simply translated the
exact conversion of an approximate number into standard.

------
rtnyftxx
the car has so much software on board but isnt it personalized so that when my
daughter is driving the car she cant get faster that e.g. 30mph? Or would this
be to obvious?

~~~
dba7dba
No product manager can plan for such lack of discretion.

~~~
jzwinck
Actually they did: [http://www.teslarati.com/depth-look-valet-mode-tesla-
model-s...](http://www.teslarati.com/depth-look-valet-mode-tesla-model-s/) \-
70 MPH limiter and also acceleration limiter.

------
tyre
More importantly, this crash shows the importance of getting humans,
especially young "adults", out from behind the wheel of a 5000 vehicle.

~~~
toomanybeersies
Or it shows that irresponsible reckless driving is generally a poor idea.

~~~
eru
And computers will be much better at driving reckful all the time than humans
who have their moments of inattention.

------
dghughes
The frunk fell off.

Sorry.

------
coin
-1 for disabling zoom on mobile devices

------
Friedduck
Skip the article. Domain redirected me to a scam site (recognized I'm on
Verizon, so it may not redirect everyone.)

