US highway agency awards Tesla Model S record safety score Champagne corks are likely popping in the corner offices of Tesla Motors in celebration over the carmaker's Model S sedan achieving the highest safety rating ever awarded in the US. "Independent testing by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) has awarded the Tesla Model S a 5-star safety rating, not just …
Nobody tested the Titanic's claims though. The first test did not go well.
The second test went a bit better, with less loss of life.
Well, it looks like Tesla's got all but one of the boxes ticked now. Range, performance, reliability (if stats so far are to be believed) and safety. What remains is the trade-in value. For me as a business owner this is important, anyway. It is, after all, quite an expensive vehicle, and I need to know what it will be worth after it's written off.
And, unfortunately, I do not have high hopes. Considering the price of the battery pack and the pace at which the technology is still advancing a 4 or 5 year old 100K Tesla may prove to be an unwanted relic .
I'm watching, though.
They have done as much to tick that last box as they can.
Elon Musk has guaranteed that the buyback price of a used Tesla will never be lower than an equivalent second-hand Mercedes-Benz S Class. There is even cover if Tesla were to go out of business:
"Even if Tesla is unable to honor it, I will personally do so. That's what I mean by putting my money where my mouth is," said Musk in a conference call with reporters. Asked his net worth, he deferred, but said estimates of $11 billion were a "bit too generous."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/04/02/elon-musk-tesla-lease/2047863/
a 4 or 5 year old 100K Tesla may prove to be an unwanted relic .
Or a design classic. It's certainly one of the more attractive vehicles out there, and it will almost certainly be seen as the first successful electric car. Beautiful and historically important. IMO more so on both fronts than, say, a mark 1 Porsche 911 or an E-type Jag.
As for advancing battery technology: if batteries in five years time have twice the capacity, surely someone will work out how to retro-fit a better battery into a Tesla? Also a lot of the cost of a battery pack is the raw material (Lithium) it contains. You should get a large trade-in allowance against a new one, and an appropriate payment for the one in a scrapped car.
TG might not be the most reliable motoring programme on TV but their point that cars "lose" BHP over time is real. Engine pushes the parts out of spec and I guess to keep them in spec it should be stripped down and the relevant bits replaced or re bored every few years. Not something that seems to happen IRL.
So the question is how easy is it to change that battery pack?
But these safety tests, how does it compare with something like a Mercedes S class? That should get top marks too. It's built like a tank.
With the right equipment it is pretty easy
It's built like a tank.
Which is NOT the right way to build a safe car. Run a tank-like vehicle into an equally solid obstacle (such as a bridge pier) and the occupants are subjected to a very high G force. They'll therefore suffer greater injury. The seat belts and airbags will do theit best to cushion them, but there's only half a meter or so of cushioning there.
As the article says, a Tesla has a front boot, all of which is engineered as a crumple zone. It therefore has an engine's length of extra crumple-distance than a front-engined car, meaning it's got maybe twice the distance for the passenger cell to decelerate within, thereby subjecting the occupants to half the force.
In reality it's not quite as great an advantage as that example, because front-engined cars aren't that badly designed. They're designed to crumple so the engine is forced downwards and the passenger cell rides upwards over the engine. In other words, not at all solid like a tank!
>Testing methodology used by the NHTSA is no secret,
Stereo loud enough for other cars to hear it at freeway speeds - check
Ability to drift across 4 lanes of a freeway without indicating - check
Can fit into McDs drive thru - check
At least 4x 196oz super-duper-slurp compatible cupholders per person - check
Equivalent turning circle to a super tanker - check
Loud stereo, seriously? Obviously you don't live in LA. This is considered a "feature" here...
Ability to drift across 4 lanes of freeway without indicating. Is there any car that forces the driver to signal his intentions or does it automatically for him? Not signaling happens here on a regular basis unfortunately. It would be a nice feature but how do you mark a car down for that if, generally, other cars do not support this feature?
I'm sorry, I totally don't get the McDs reference or how the cup holders are relevant.
Turning radius? Is it that bad on the Tesla Model S? How does it really matter as a safety concern? Genuinely interested in intelligent answers here.
This was a crash safety test we are talking about. I do not see that any of your points are relevant in this context.
If the front "trunk" is empty or filled with packing peanuts, it will make a great crumple zone. If, on the other hand you have 4 sets of golf clubs in there you may be impaled with multiple graphite spears. Or if you are transporting 8 cases of dynamite and blasting caps or perhaps a load of anvils, your crash test results may vary.
I am so over people "gushing" over how great this crapwagon is. If it wasn't for the $7500.- subsidy Uncle Sam is pick pocketing out of MY wallet, the sales would not be half of current levels.
For the time being at least. In China, they are currently working on a new electric car, to be known as the Edward Snowden e-car, which will be even safer, because, thanks to its multiple levels of reporting devices accessible by sundry authorities (government, local council, wife, employer) in return for a fee, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear!
It's not really too much of a surprise that the safety ratings are so high. They've had a blank slate to work with: Very, very rarely do automobile manufacturers have that opportunity.
Every mainstream manufacturer has an incredibly large investment in production equipment as do the parts suppliers. They can't retool everything for a new model, so a large percentage of the parts base is reused across many models for many years. All that means manufacturers have what they have and it won't change for long periods of time, if ever.
Er... I assume that was tested with the 'trunk' at the front empty.
What if it was full ? What if it was full of, say, a section of massive pieces of jaggy stee,l you were transporting somewhere ?
Though removing the engine, they have surely added a new variable to a crash ? (not new - I mean other mid/rear engine cars have front boots... I'm just saying...)
anyway electric/all cars are still fecking stupid - If we got rid of the dumb electric bike laws in this country, a safe electric bicycle could do 30mph and 30 miles of a charge (currently limited to 15mph). That would cover a large percentage of peoples commuting needs... would be cheap (<1000 quid), no stupid massive batteries, or transporting 90% dead weight around, etc. etc....
stu (3 electric bikes... though i do also have 3 cars... so not claiming green credentials - just saying)
It's pretty absurd if you genuinely feel that a Tesla should be loaded with crap to handicap it in safety tests. Do other cars have to have their boots loaded? No, because it would be stupid.
"anyway electric/all cars are still fecking stupid"
Good to hear that you have an open mind, though.
Mostly trunks aren't completely full with solid stuff. If they are, the car is almost certainly dangerously overloaded (and being used way outside its specification, so any consequences are definitely its user's fault). Usually, baggage is light and squashy stuff (like clothes or desktop PCs).
For reference, a cubic meter of concrete is about 2.5 tons. The maximum permitted load for a typical car, (evenly distributed between both axles, and including the passengers) is in the ballpark of 1.5 tons. Probably quite a bit less for a sports vehicle like a Tesla, and at most half at the front.
You're Right! All cars should be filled with jaggy steel for crash testing. It's not fair that trucks have to be loaded with rocks and SUV's have to be filled with bricks during testing but sports cars are exempt. Minivans are filled with molten glass for their tests! People carry CHIlDREN in minivans!!!!
This is PROOF that the liberal elite hate blue collar workers and want to kill them by making them drive unsafe vehicles! GASOLINE TASTES LIKE CHICKEN!
Jesus. How do people like this even manage to register for a user account?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
