-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
The material now needed for the ARMOR PLATE
- Thread starter tray loader
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Driving Dynamics Model S
Everything will bounce off, except all the things that won't.
There is no armor plate in existence that will stop everything, so it is necessary to make a cost-benefit analysis. It is almost certainly cheaper to replace the battery packs damaged by road debris than to modify the battery pack with a more sturdy armor plate - something that will affect handling, range, cost, etc.
There is no armor plate in existence that will stop everything, so it is necessary to make a cost-benefit analysis. It is almost certainly cheaper to replace the battery packs damaged by road debris than to modify the battery pack with a more sturdy armor plate - something that will affect handling, range, cost, etc.
Battleship Bismarck had the strongest armor ever and was sunk on her maiden voyage. Took a hit at the wrong spot.
The concept of armor is to reflect the impact energy. This only works if there is open space where the deflected body could be flung towards without causing further harm. That won't work for the underside of a car!
The impact energy must be absorbed by a dedicated crash structure to avoid damage to vital car parts.
The concept of armor is to reflect the impact energy. This only works if there is open space where the deflected body could be flung towards without causing further harm. That won't work for the underside of a car!
The impact energy must be absorbed by a dedicated crash structure to avoid damage to vital car parts.
Raffy.Roma
Rome (Italy)
Agree. That's why I would prefer an adaptable spoiler like that used by Porsche. Ok in case of accident with a road debris like a hitch the adaptable spoiler would get damaged. But better than the risk of a fire.
Well, technically she was disabled by a hit in the steering gear and her own crew scuttled the vessel after most of the structure above the waterline had been blown away by British bombardment. The armoured hull actually held up really well against the British cannons.
Apologize for the digression...
artsci
Sponsor
Couldn't agree more. It makes no economic or even practical sense to armor the battery for a worst case incident that will occur infrequently. The trade offs always have to be factored in.
Suzieq
Member
Its a good thing you aren't designing EV's, although you would probably be good at designing tanks.
Wrong perspective
For those taking the armor idea seriously, there is a higher level perspective and analysis to be done first. If road debris impact fires continue at the current rate (and this last month may have been a transient blip) then 1 out of 10,000 Model Ss might burn a year. Since drivers are remaining safe, only cost and environmental impact need be considered and armoring every Tesla likely far exceeds the cost of replacing a couple cars a year. Just consider the additional energy use of adding 5% to the car's weight multiplied by the millions of miles being driven.
To be clear, I for one don't not want any weight added to my Tesla. I'd much rather get a new one (now under warrantee) than suffer the performance and efficiency degradation of armoring up for an extremely rare event.
An ICE car may or may not have burned from hitting those same debris, but no matter what I doubt they'd be drivable without an oilpan or differential cover so this is not even a driver inconvenience issue. Let's focus on things much more likely to hurt us, like driver distraction.
For those taking the armor idea seriously, there is a higher level perspective and analysis to be done first. If road debris impact fires continue at the current rate (and this last month may have been a transient blip) then 1 out of 10,000 Model Ss might burn a year. Since drivers are remaining safe, only cost and environmental impact need be considered and armoring every Tesla likely far exceeds the cost of replacing a couple cars a year. Just consider the additional energy use of adding 5% to the car's weight multiplied by the millions of miles being driven.
To be clear, I for one don't not want any weight added to my Tesla. I'd much rather get a new one (now under warrantee) than suffer the performance and efficiency degradation of armoring up for an extremely rare event.
An ICE car may or may not have burned from hitting those same debris, but no matter what I doubt they'd be drivable without an oilpan or differential cover so this is not even a driver inconvenience issue. Let's focus on things much more likely to hurt us, like driver distraction.
sp4rk
Banned
Why are we even discussing this?
Armor plate is a pile of rust.
Our cars are perfectly safe. You're just compounding a non-issue by adding fuel to the "f1r3" so to speak.
Armor plate is a pile of rust.
Our cars are perfectly safe. You're just compounding a non-issue by adding fuel to the "f1r3" so to speak.
1)It's only a pile of rust if it's made of a ferrous material.
2)We're talking about it because a non-punctured and non-burning battery is better than a punctured and burning one even if there was zero danger to the occupants.
3)The danger to the occupants is non-zero. It is not at all difficult to imagine a scenario of a large metal object that not only punctured the battery but also forced the vehicle off the road and into trees or into a ditch or some other structure that caused enough damage and/or injury to the occupants that they could not get themselves out of the vehicle. A burning battery, in this case, could ignite the material on the ground, and spread around the vehicle. While the firewall history so far is impressive, that doesn't mean it's perfect.
So, if there is a practical, cost effective way to better protect the battery from damage, even if there is zero safety risk, then you're helping avoid a lot of inconvenience and expense for replacement of a damaged pack.
IMO, comments like "This care is perfectly safe" are quite dangerous. Someday it is highly probable that someone will be killed while in a Model S and it is also highly probable that there will be someone killed in a Model S with a fire involved. Whether they would've been killed in a conventional vehicle as well will be irrelevant and the quotes about safest vehicle and all that will be pulled up and used against Tesla.
I believe it is one of the safest if not the safest cars out there...but that does not mean it can't be made more safe and that seeking to better protect the vulnerabilities isn't a wise move. It's magical thinking to believe that this, the first production vehicle out of Tesla, could not be made better.
Google is Your friend:
Weathering steel - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
or search Cor- ten- steel
ToddRLockwood
Active Member
I agree. As nice as it would be, they will never reduce the fire risk to 0%. And gas-powered cars have a fire risk that is nearly 5 times greater. So where's the problem? Tesla already went to great lengths to make their battery system the safest in the industry, and clearly, the statistics speak to this.
PokerBroker
Member
Before you add an armored plate to the bottom of the Model S perhaps a puncture force test should be performed comparing the bottom of the Model S to a typical ICE vehicle.
mknox
Well-Known Member
Gizmotoy
Active Member
Similar threads
