I totally want a cow-catcher like the one mknox posted a picture of. Just for looks. :wink:
But they need to be designed more like cat whiskers to go with the eyes and Artsci's nose.
You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I totally want a cow-catcher like the one mknox posted a picture of. Just for looks. :wink:
I totally want a cow-catcher like the one mknox posted a picture of. Just for looks. :wink:
Would just like to point out that the danger to occupants from meteor strikes is also non-zero. That doesn't mean the roof needs an armor plate.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.
I'd agree that if there is a practical, cost-effective solution, that would be good. And I think Tesla has already implemented that practical, cost-effective solution - namely raising the suspension. It's extremely unlikely any physical alterations to the battery packs would be cost effective.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.
Tesla should attempt to improve the battery pack when they roll out their 100 kWh (?) pack. At that point they can implement any changes at minimal cost. If this includes altering the armor plate remains to be seen. Maybe tapering the armor plate would be meaningful. If Tesla uses 0.35" aluminium for the front half of the battery pack, and 0.15" aluminium for the rear half, that should improve the road debris impact characteristics, without affecting weight, range, cost, etc.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.
and thus such an eventuality wouldn't meet the practical, cost-effective critieria. It is impractical for such a rare and highly unlikely event. The battery is, and always will be, low to the ground, cover a larger surface area and there will always be signficant risk of roadway debris. Thus, an analysis of the situation and consideration of a practical cost effective means of attenuating the risk of damage makes sense. If meteors fell at a rate of 100/hr along roadways then roof armor would make sense. There's a point of diminishing returns on anything like this and it is up to those better equipt to make the determinations of where that line is to decide of additional armor or other design changes are a good idea.Would just like to point out that the danger to occupants from meteor strikes is also non-zero. That doesn't mean the roof needs an armor plate.
You can think that, I can think otherwise (I don't), but neither of us can justify that belief with facts.I'd agree that if there is a practical, cost-effective solution, that would be good. And I think Tesla has already implemented that practical, cost-effective solution - namely raising the suspension. It's extremely unlikely any physical alterations to the battery packs would be cost effective.
Again, maybe that's the way it should/will be done...I don't know. Maybe all they need is a layer of styrofoam, maybe a thinner plate is just as good and will lower the weight...just zero facts to make that call.Tesla should attempt to improve the battery pack when they roll out their 100 kWh (?) pack. At that point they can implement any changes at minimal cost. If this includes altering the armor plate remains to be seen. Maybe tapering the armor plate would be meaningful. If Tesla uses 0.35" aluminium for the front half of the battery pack, and 0.15" aluminium for the rear half, that should improve the road debris impact characteristics, without affecting weight, range, cost, etc.
Again, maybe so...and I think this is the point you're grasping what I was attempting to get at. In light of the battery damage (fire or not) it's reasonable to reassess the safety of the battery for purposes of damage and passenger safety and give consideration to possible design changes. It's just possible that this will be the inspiration for a dramatic, cost effective improvement that actually lowers the overall weight as you suggest with your design idea...it's also possible that the analysis will show that there is no practical cost effective way to make the battery protection measurably better. In either case, it's time well spent.Maybe swapping the massive aluminum plate for a 0.5" carbon fibre/aluminium honeycomb plate would reduce weight, increase range/performance and improve road debris impact characteristics at a sufficiently low cost. We will see.
http://www.teslamotors.com/forum/fo...impalement-compared-battery-bullet-proof-vest
This posted on TESLAMOTORS.COM by d_v. It will make you feel all warm and fuzzy about your (grin of) Teslas..
Thanks for the links. I think I'll print out the two from the Orlando Sentinel to hand out to the next guy who smirks about Tesla fires.
Just had to resurrect this thread, and in hindsight it's an interesting read because it somewhat captures the emotions of the time. Isn't anyone going to say "I told you so?" No wait, nobody mentioned titanium...lol.
No because it was entirely unnecessary. They've basically made an armored car just short of a humvee armored for land mines. Just to reassure scared and foolish consumers who cannot rationally calculate risk. Sure it lives up to the purpose of Tesla motors - to bring forward the mass adoption of electric transport. However humans=stupid.
Just had to resurrect this thread, and in hindsight it's an interesting read because it somewhat captures the emotions of the time. Isn't anyone going to say "I told you so?" No wait, nobody mentioned titanium...lol.
The impact energy must be absorbed by a dedicated crash structure to avoid damage to vital car parts.