Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

AXA Crash Test Tesla Model S

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.

Lord Farquad

2022 MYLR W/B/20s/Tow bar. Previously 2021 M3SR+
Aug 20, 2021
694
784
North West
So AXA have allegedly published this video online showing a crash test of a MS. It hits a traffic island that damages the underside so badly it starts a catastrophic fire…..

Except they removed the battery and used pyrotechnics to demonstrate the fire (because a real one was too dangerous).

The underside of the car looked pretty ok to me post collision.

A) what on earth are they trying to show?
B) will Tesla sue them for liable?

 
Yeah I saw this on Twitter with the caption:

Tesla Model S with no batteries intentionally crashed and set on fire to demonstrate dangers of EV battery fires

Why would you intentionally put your company name inverted on a burning car?!
With smoke billowing over your logo in the background!

So weird
1661979538755.png
 
  • Funny
Reactions: Silicon Desert
NBC got sued and lost doing something similar to GM. they were less upfront about it though
 
  • Like
Reactions: SabrToothSqrl
AXA Switzerland (which produced the video) has just released a formal apology :


The only figure they could pull out for their defence is "AXA Switzerland’s statistics show that drivers of electric vehicles cause 50 percent more collisions with damage to their own vehicles than drivers of conventional vehicles with combustion engines." (interesting...)

But they end up being forced to admit " Although our press release did mention explicitly that, according to AXA Switzerland’s statistics, electric vehicles do not catch fire any more frequently that combustion-engine vehicles, we are regrettably forced to admit that – in the absence of any context – the image material published appears to give a different impression."
 
  • Informative
Reactions: NewbieT
AXA Switzerland (which produced the video) has just released a formal apology :


The only figure they could pull out for their defence is "AXA Switzerland’s statistics show that drivers of electric vehicles cause 50 percent more collisions with damage to their own vehicles than drivers of conventional vehicles with combustion engines." (interesting...)

But they end up being forced to admit " Although our press release did mention explicitly that, according to AXA Switzerland’s statistics, electric vehicles do not catch fire any more frequently that combustion-engine vehicles, we are regrettably forced to admit that – in the absence of any context – the image material published appears to give a different impression."
Well the first part is interesting if there are statistically more EV accidents pro rata than ICE. It would certainly be interesting to understand why that would be the case. We can guess (and it is a guess) at the instant torque means they take off more quickly, no engine noise so people mistakenly forgetting the car is "live", electronic gear select which can mean the car isn't always in the gear you think (more than once I've gone the wrong way because the car hasn't changed gear, something I never do with an big old fashioned auto gearbox controller), etc.

The fires point is also one I'm undecided on. You need to benchmark against cars of a similar age. What's the % of cars under 4 years old that catch fire is the statistic. Although equally it may be arguable that on cars over 4 years old, ICE get more as maintenance issues creep in and rubber perishes etc causing the fires, whereas EV's don't have the same fuel line problems. And secondly the consequences of the fire are as important as the number of fires. If many petrol fires can be snuffed out in 2 mins with a mini fire extinguisher but a battery fire requires specialist containment equipment then the former can be tolerated. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not suggesting any of this is proven, I'm merely suggesting anything is possible, we don't have meaningful data.

The whole story sounds more like a training or promotional video where for production and safety purposes they used a bit of Hollywood creativity rather than risk killing the camera crew, and it's been blown out of all proportion.
 
Well the first part is interesting if there are statistically more EV accidents pro rata than ICE. It would certainly be interesting to understand why that would be the case. We can guess (and it is a guess) at the instant torque means they take off more quickly, no engine noise so people mistakenly forgetting the car is "live", electronic gear select which can mean the car isn't always in the gear you think (more than once I've gone the wrong way because the car hasn't changed gear, something I never do with an big old fashioned auto gearbox controller), etc.

The fires point is also one I'm undecided on. You need to benchmark against cars of a similar age. What's the % of cars under 4 years old that catch fire is the statistic. Although equally it may be arguable that on cars over 4 years old, ICE get more as maintenance issues creep in and rubber perishes etc causing the fires, whereas EV's don't have the same fuel line problems. And secondly the consequences of the fire are as important as the number of fires. If many petrol fires can be snuffed out in 2 mins with a mini fire extinguisher but a battery fire requires specialist containment equipment then the former can be tolerated. For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not suggesting any of this is proven, I'm merely suggesting anything is possible, we don't have meaningful data.

The whole story sounds more like a training or promotional video where for production and safety purposes they used a bit of Hollywood creativity rather than risk killing the camera crew, and it's been blown out of all proportion.
They don't say the EVs have more accidents, Just that if an accident takes place then drivers of EVs are 50% more likely to be the cause of damage to their own vehicle.

The fact that they didn't manage to find that EVs are in more accidents etc would suggest that they are involved in the same amount or less.
 
They don't say the EVs have more accidents, Just that if an accident takes place then drivers of EVs are 50% more likely to be the cause of damage to their own vehicle.

The fact that they didn't manage to find that EVs are in more accidents etc would suggest that they are involved in the same amount or less.
I’m trying to understand what means as it doesn’t compute to me. In the event of an accident, are they saying EV owners are 50% more likely to be the cause as presumably if they’re responsible for the damage to their own car, they’d also be responsible for the damage to whatever they hit, or at least it be 50/50? Surely that also means they’re in more accidents unless for some reason they’re in fewer accidents overall, but when they do it’s usually their fault? How do you significantly reduce the number of accidents you’re in caused by others, I can’t believe EV owners are expert defensive drivers but crash a lot at their own fault? Just trying to understand how to interpret the figures.

I did see they said there were fewer fires, but that’s a different metric.

Edit to add: I see pdk42 has found a quote about more accidents which I can believe. I don’t think it’s AXAs finest hour on the staged accident or the subsequent commentary
 
Last edited: