-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
RogerHScott
Active Member
CuriousG
Active Member
This gives new meaning to the term "bumping uglies".
Sounds great, until you hit a solid object.
Yeah, I saw a video where they crashed Smart cars into a concrete barrier at high speed and the car survived with little damage but the crash dummies showed that the occupants would have died because of the deceleration rate because of the lack of a crumple zone.
So Smart cars rely on other cars crumple zones to allow their passengers to survive. Not really the best plan for all situations. (Not to mention likely causing more injuries to the passengers in the other vehicle than they would have received if the accident was with another car with a reasonable crumple zone.)
RogerHScott
Active Member
Not to mention fundamentally unethical. This is the automotive equivalent of people not vaccinating their kids because enough other
people are vaccinating theirs. One thing that's unclear here, though, is just how much lighter a Smart car actually is. It is possible that,
all things considered, you're better off crashing into a Smart car w/o a crumple zone than a much heavier car with one. But, ultimately,
if two Smart cars collide and the lack of crumple zones results in massive injuries to the occupants of both vehicles then there's just no
excuse.
Making news again today.
Widow of man killed in downtown crash files suit against Tesla over defects
Wife of passenger in fiery Tesla crash in 2016 files wrongful death lawsuit
I am sorry for her loss but:
1. Her husband was in a car being driven by a person with a blood alcohol of 0.21
2. The driver was at speeds in excess of 75 mph while drunk
3. The driver struck an object causing the problem while intoxicated
4. The driver was driving a Tesla while all of the above happened
This is the driver's fault and the passenger's death is due to getting into a performance sedan with a drunk driver. The driver died. So she the only thing left which is the car a negligent and intoxicated driver was "driving."
Again, I am sorry for her loss but this won't change his own personal bad decision that night or the driver's personal decision to endanger themselves and everyone else on the road that night.
Widow of man killed in downtown crash files suit against Tesla over defects
Wife of passenger in fiery Tesla crash in 2016 files wrongful death lawsuit
I am sorry for her loss but:
1. Her husband was in a car being driven by a person with a blood alcohol of 0.21
2. The driver was at speeds in excess of 75 mph while drunk
3. The driver struck an object causing the problem while intoxicated
4. The driver was driving a Tesla while all of the above happened
This is the driver's fault and the passenger's death is due to getting into a performance sedan with a drunk driver. The driver died. So she the only thing left which is the car a negligent and intoxicated driver was "driving."
Again, I am sorry for her loss but this won't change his own personal bad decision that night or the driver's personal decision to endanger themselves and everyone else on the road that night.
I am genuinely curious about the ability to escape the car in such a crash (as well as the X and 3, and even etron since they all have electronic latches). Of course the doors could be crumpled to prevent exit regardless of latch type but electronic latches seem like a terrible idea.
One of those window smashing tools would have helped, but the latch design seems flawed.
One of those window smashing tools would have helped, but the latch design seems flawed.
I believe the passenger (who owned the car) was also way above the legal limit. His judgement was probably impaired too.
I saw the pictures from that crash and hearth the stories from the witnesses. About the only vehicle that might have survived a crash like that would have been something built for the military for armed conflict. And even at that the people inside may have been killed.
Tam
Well-Known Member
All front doors for Model S, X, 3 can be opened manually without any aids of electronic system.
Occupants can grab the interior door handles for S and X to open normally whether it's electronically or mechanically.
Model 3 does not have door handles to open the front doors. It has a separate electronic button if there's electricity to use. If there's no electricity, occupants can manually pull up the toggle next to them.
For Model 3, almost all of my passengers have reached the manually pull up the toggle next to them because the electronic button is just a little a few inches further.
The back doors are another story:
There are strings to pull for Model S next to occupants' feet.
There are strings to pull behind the speaker grilles for Model X falcon wing doors.
For Model 3 rear passenger doors: manual door opening from inside only available for front doors, not rear. That means: Hopefully, I'll be nimble and slim enough in my old age to climb to the front to manually open Model 3 front doors from inside when there's no electricity to rear doors.
I’m sorry for her loss but this was 100% caused by negligent and dangerous drunk driving. The lawsuit is absurd.
Tam
Well-Known Member
Once there's a signal from SRS (supplemental restraint system including seatbelts, airbags...) all doors are unlocked.
For Model S, the hidden handles would all protrude out as seen in this picture below from wgnsradio.com:
The lawyers forgot to sue the tree and parking garage that jumped in front of them. This was an attempt to "impress" a pretty, young, drunk female employee gone wrong. Her family should be suing her boss. This stinks!
As long as the 12v system doesn't fail. Even if the handles are presented they won't work from the outside without an intact 12v battery and wiring. (When the SRS goes off it disconnects the HV battery, so the 12v battery is all that is left to power the door latches.)
In fact if the 12v system fails the handles will automatically retract. (A spring pulls them back in.)
Tam
Well-Known Member
Only 12V is needed for door electronic works. There is no need for the HV battery to get the door electronic work.
The protocol for First Responders is to physically cut the 12V off as soon as possible (by cutting the 12V loop wire in 2 separate places to make sure they can't be reconnected).
Model S protruding handles remain protruding throughout the work of First Responders.
Whether they can open the doors or not is another story. They may need the Jaw-of-Life to cut the door out because of structural damage that prevents the doors from opening.
Last edited:
RogerHScott
Active Member
It seems they've both paid for any transgressions against one another. Are we saying that people now have an obligation to remain sufficiently in command of their faculties to prevent other people, who are "judgment-compromised", from doing stupid/dangerous things? More specific, in this case, we're saying that people's families are responsible for them failing to do so?
There is no loop to cut that removes the 12v supply. The safety loop ensures that the HV pack is disconnected. Cutting it won't turn off the 12v supply to the car. But if they do disconnect/cut the cable to the 12v battery then they wouldn't be able to open any doors from the outside even if the handles were presented.
Nope, my understanding is that as soon as you lose power the handles should retract unless there is body damage preventing them from doing so.
I didn't even think about this scenario. Is it true that you cannot open any Tesla (S/X/3) doors from the outside with a failed 12v system?
Similar threads
