Safety crash ratings

were my thoughts exactly--just missed your post:

New Safety Test: S now clearly safest luxury sedan available?
A new crash-test focusing on a front corner impact, which is apparently the leading remaining cause of vehicle deaths, has revealed serious deficiencies in Merc, Audi and Lexus. S was not part of the test yet. Should we guess that it would ace this with its unique front crumple zone advantage? If so, perhaps TM should make a point of highlighting this?

Mercedes, Lexus, Audi Sedans Earn Poor Crash-Test Ratings - Businessweek

Looks like Tesla already did the overlap test. Here's a still from the crash test video:



And the video (see 1.01 minute mark):

NigelM said:

Looks like Tesla already did the overlap test.

Click to expand...

I am also curious to know what their result was. The video loop is somewhat short.

Jeeps17 said:

I am also curious to know what their result was.

Click to expand...

The only thing we know is Elon's comments regarding Model S being "as safe as possible" and "5 stars in every category".

The crash simulation above looks to use the standard 40% offset front bumper impact. IIHS developed a new test with only 25% of the bumper hitting an obstacle. Some vehicles scored a "poor result", e.g. from front wheels entering the passenger cabin.

This is a different test than either of the two we've seen footage or animations of from Tesla. The ones in the video are the NHTSA front impact test which is the full front of the vehicle, and the IIHS moderate overlap impact test which is 40% of the front. This is a new test that's only on a quarter of the front on the car.



Frontal offset test information

Here's the IIHS's article & video, which complements the other info.

It's not clear how Model S will do in this new test. Take a look at the frame diagram shown HERE. The two massive "prongs" underneath the frunk look to be too close to the centerline to directly absorb any of the small-overlap collision. So, it appears the first substantial structure fore of the A-pillar is the suspension. Hmm.

Robert.Boston said:

Here's the IIHS's article & video, which complements the other info.

It's not clear how Model S will do in this new test. Take a look at the frame diagram shown HERE. The two massive "prongs" underneath the frunk look to be too close to the centerline to directly absorb any of the small-overlap collision. So, it appears the first substantial structure fore of the A-pillar is the suspension. Hmm.

Click to expand...

True, however connected to those two massive "prongs" is the boron steel bumper, which has to be heated to be able to even be formed to its shape. I think superman might have a hard time bending this stuff, so I envision the S careening away from the impact device as it strikes the bumper, rather than the device pushing the body structure into the passenger compartment space. This is due to the extreme offset of the collision point. (just joking about the superman part)

I think this new test is completely arbitrary. I mean how often do you get a crash that happens that way. Near never I would say.
If you want to be completely safe - don't drive at all.

I mean really, all tests out there assume some form of standardization happens in accidents when in reality, every crash is different.
They might as well start crash tests with cars travelling 100 miles per hour hitting a standing car head on, which happens on Autobahns at the end of traffic jams sometimes.
Or they could test how cars withstand pianos falling on top of them. Oh no, wait, someone already tried that a couple of times... :wink:

AustinPowers said:

I think this new test is completely arbitrary. I mean how often do you get a crash that happens that way. Near never I would say.
If you want to be completely safe - don't drive at all.

I mean really, all tests out there assume some form of standardization happens in accidents when in reality, every crash is different.
They might as well start crash tests with cars travelling 100 miles per hour hitting a standing car head on, which happens on Autobahns at the end of traffic jams sometimes.
Or they could test how cars withstand pianos falling on top of them. Oh no, wait, someone already tried that a couple of times... :wink:

Click to expand...

This is really about the relevancy of the IIHS. The majority of cars now pass their standard and so to be relevant, the IIHS brings out a new standard which the majority of cars do not pass and voila they are once again relevant to the consumer.

The IIHS addresses this:

"Nearly every new car performs well in other frontal crash tests conducted by the Institute and the federal government, but we still see more than 10,000 deaths in frontal crashes each year," Institute President Adrian Lund says. "Small overlap crashes are a major source of these fatalities. This new test program is based on years of analyzing real-world frontal crashes and then replicating them in our crash test facility to determine how people are being seriously injured and how cars can be designed to protect them better. We think this is the next step in improving frontal crash protection." ....

In a 2009 Institute study of vehicles with good ratings for frontal crash protection, small overlap crashes accounted for nearly a quarter of the frontal crashes involving serious or fatal injury to front seat occupants.

Click to expand...

Tommy said:

This is really about the relevancy of the IIHS. The majority of cars now pass their standard and so to be relevant, the IIHS brings out a new standard which the majority of cars do not pass and voila they are once again relevant to the consumer.

Click to expand...

I see it as a logical way to move the bar forward. The whole point of the Insurance Institute doing these tests is to see which vehicles are safest comparative to each other, which insurance companies can use to rank vehicles against each other in determining potential liability, and also to make the vehicles safer for passengers which reduces potential liability for insurance companies. The tests need to be hard enough to have separation between the best, decent, and poor. For instance, if any SAT score over 1000 just gave a grade of "Pass", it would do nothing to show how the majority of students compare to each other.

Yes, I was being a bit sarcastic, however I really don't know how else to explain these incremental "baby steps" tests they implement trying to insure frontal crashes are more survivable. They have the stats, set the bar where it needs to be and manufacturers will respond to build a car better than their competitors.

Tommy said:

Yes, I was being a bit sarcastic, however I really don't know how else to explain these incremental "baby steps" tests they implement trying to insure frontal crashes are more survivable. They have the stats, set the bar where it needs to be and manufacturers will respond to build a car better than their competitors.

Click to expand...

It's like any other problem solving process. If you start with a 100% problem base (that is all the possible problems are in whatever it is you're working on), you work on the biggest problem first (When you head is on the chopping block, not much point in worrying about your whiskers). Often solving the biggest problem reveals problems not visible until the larger problem was removed. Then you work on the next biggest problem. Everything can't be fixed at once because of the hidden problems and in some cases solving the larger problem causes problems that didn't exist--not that those can be distinguished from hidden problems.

To take the corner collision case, until the 1/2 collision improvements were made, it's very likely no one even knew about the 1/4 collision case (and there were probably no statistics on them either) because all were lumped in with the 1/2 collisions.

AustinPowers said:

I think this new test is completely arbitrary. I mean how often do you get a crash that happens that way. Near never I would say.
If you want to be completely safe - don't drive at all.

I mean really, all tests out there assume some form of standardization happens in accidents when in reality, every crash is different.
They might as well start crash tests with cars travelling 100 miles per hour hitting a standing car head on, which happens on Autobahns at the end of traffic jams sometimes.
Or they could test how cars withstand pianos falling on top of them. Oh no, wait, someone already tried that a couple of times... :wink:

Click to expand...

The news tonight said statistics show that greater than 1/4 of all front end head on collisions were of this type.

To reiterate my early post, quoting the IIHS:

In a 2009 Institute study of vehicles with good ratings for frontal crash protection, small overlap crashes accounted for nearly a quarter of the frontal crashes involving serious or fatal injury to front seat occupants.

Click to expand...

So, less than 25% of the relevant crashes are in the category. Still, a pretty big number. The Model S, with its high-strength bumper and passenger cage, and its lack of an engine, should respond very differently to this test. I hope we'll learn soon whether that's good or bad.

AustinPowers said:

I think this new test is completely arbitrary. I mean how often do you get a crash that happens that way. Near never I would say.
If you want to be completely safe - don't drive at all.

Click to expand...

I've been in exactly that crash (came around a curve to find a drunk driver confused about what lane was his). It ended with his bumper on top of my steering wheel. If I hadn't been wearing a seatbelt, I wouldn't be here. Near never? Not from where I sit.

AustinPowers said:

I think this new test is completely arbitrary. I mean how often do you get a crash that happens that way. Near never I would say.
If you want to be completely safe - don't drive at all.

Click to expand...

Well. I have seen a 1st hand ford f150? with a crew/king cab forget which...and it might have been a 250 but regardless...it ran into a rocky shoulder in one of our construction zones and the front passenger wheel and Q panel was pushed such that it pinned the kids foot into the bottom of the dash (he was sitting shotgun obviously) probably 40ish mph impact. I think the lady driving was distracted by the girl in the back seat or the boy in the front? no reason to just drive straight into a rock when the road turns.

Road Construction accidents suck
We are paving DN 101 (CA) and one of the Asphalt trucks got T-boned yesterday by a van - after he had dropped his load fortunately
and luckily it was a van not one of those 'luxury cars' because they would have been toast! the van was pretty front cornerbottom crumpled
and the Semi tractor has a broken tranny! The van had about 500 feet of sight distance and just plowed the truck as it was turning around. right between the rear sets of wheels into the 'bar' between the two

drive slowly in construction areas please - or at a minimum pay attention and be able to stop for whatever you can see

Robert.Boston said:

To reiterate my early post, quoting the IIHS:

So, less than 25% of the relevant crashes are in the category. Still, a pretty big number. The Model S, with its high-strength bumper and passenger cage, and its lack of an engine, should respond very differently to this test. I hope we'll learn soon whether that's good or bad.

Click to expand...

I'd expect it to be good, given no engine being shoved into the driver's lap. At least better than most other passenger vehicles. Guess we'll have to wait for that info though...