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

IIHS Small Overlap Front Crash Test (2nd Attempt): Only Acceptable again.

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Sorry Tesla, you fail again. I am not impressed.

do people actually base their car buying of safety ratings? you have a P100D so i'm guessing not. But sure, Tesla "fails again" lol


Limited list of other cars with just an "acceptable or less" rating i can remember off the top of my head.
2014-2015 Toyota Prius prime; prius V got "poor" haha.
2016 BMW 3 series "marginal"
2015 Chevy Volt "acceptable"
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: alseTrick
do people actually base their car buying of safety ratings? you have a P100D so i'm guessing not. But sure, Tesla "fails again" lol


Limited list of other cars with just an "acceptable or less" rating i can remember off the top of my head.
2014-2015 Toyota Prius prime; prius V got "poor" haha.
2016 BMW 3 series "marginal"
2015 Chevy Volt "acceptable"

Um yes. I value my life and the lives of my passengers.

When I purchased the car, I erroneously believed that the Model S had very high safety ratings (based on my research at the time, I thought the best). I was lead to believe that the P100D would come with blind spot, forward collision avoidance, etc. but it does not have those features very functional (not even to the level of a "cheap" car).

I also did not know the P100D would have marginal rollover results due to poor engineering (not increasing pillar structural support despite increased battery weight).

I'm sorry, but I would never buy a Prius or a 3-series or a Volt. Those cars are not even on my radar, they are simply stationary objects to get around on the freeway. I am a safe, but very aggressive, driver LOL.
 
This is not overly surprising. The Model S is a 5 year old design at this point. This test was introduced in 2012, and therefore the S was probably not designed with it in mind. Car safety moves very quickly, and the fact that its no longer the safest car should be expected. The three other cars that did better are all brand new.
Maybe Tesla should do more to keep the vehicle current. Tesla has had almost five years since Model S launch to make material structural improvements. Sounds like Tesla is more pissed at itself than at the IIHS.
 
Makes me curious how my 2015 pre-facelift Model S would have fared in such a test, had it been tested. There may or may not have been any production changes in seatbelts, seats, airbags, frames, etc., you name it, that could have affected the test result. Unfortunately, there is likely no way to find out.
 
Yes, because it is quite cheap with conventional construction. Tesla is not that, at present anyway. The combination of almost all aluminum construction, with strong acceleration, small manufacturer, and lack of historical strong relationships with the insurers will tend towards lesser valuation. Volvo had a fairly long history, including more than a decade Wirth Ford ownership, history of conservative drivers, quite conventional construction.
At least one person seems to disagree with my comments. I suggest that one check IIHS history and record. They are not fond of innovation, just as insurers are generally likely to up-rate exotic vehicles.
This is all about loss frequency and loss severity. The most recent test is somewhat analogous to Norway's famous "moose test". Some vehicles had to have large modifications to pass the test. Tesla will require some modifications to pass this one. When IIHS does it's advances they are intended to spot areas, however rare, that could increase losses. Fine print needs to be viewed to justify that.

I do not dislike the IIHS, but I do think it's wise not to regard them as "fair and impartial". Those two attributes are not part of their equation.
 
The test is fairly and impartially administered. Tesla did poorly. Thems the facts. Griping about the IIHS isn't going to change anything. Note how Tesla didn't whine and complain after doing poorly the first time. They just realize their marketing about safest car was like their AP marketing -- effective but ultimately deceptive. It sucks because my wife was drawn to Tesla for two reasons:

1. BEV -- we only consider BEV.

2. Safety. At this price safety trumps all.

I liked the look, acceleration, handling, AP, etc. She could care less (though she admits its a damn sexy car).
 
  • Like
Reactions: alseTrick
One can imagine that a minimal difference in approach angle of the wheel will be magnified once the wheel is fully crumbled up against the back of the wheel well and thus yield different results.

Is that poor recreation/consistency of the test? It seems to me if that was the result of differences in approach angle, then the test isn't comparing the same crash. Or is it normal / within margin of error for IIHS (or other crash testers?) to test cars of "identical structure" and get two different results? Cuz the first was <2 inches intrusion leading to a "good" score, and the next was 11 inches leading to "acceptable". Having trouble understanding this. I'd think if they perform the test the same, on the same car, results would be same/similar (or at least in the same rating category).
 
After watching the small offset tests way too many times, I've come to a couple observations:

1. The battery pack is great at limiting intrusion into the cabin (the Yin)
2. The battery pack is terrible at absorbing energy (the Yang)
3. Tesla S is only car I saw whose forward momentum is stopped by the barrier (16 Challenger was close). Everyone else appears to deform and slide past the obstruction
4. The seat belt really seems like it didn't function properly

Based on this, if Tesla could add a reinforced angle ahead of the pack without compromising the other structural aspects, I think the S might also slide past the barrier. No idea where they could package that though... Or, if they could chamfer the pack corners so they start angling at 25% of vehicle width, that might also do it, but it would cut pack volume and not protect outboard legs as much.
 
After watching the small offset tests way too many times, I've come to a couple observations:

1. The battery pack is great at limiting intrusion into the cabin (the Yin)
2. The battery pack is terrible at absorbing energy (the Yang)
3. Tesla S is only car I saw whose forward momentum is stopped by the barrier (16 Challenger was close). Everyone else appears to deform and slide past the obstruction
4. The seat belt really seems like it didn't function properly

Based on this, if Tesla could add a reinforced angle ahead of the pack without compromising the other structural aspects, I think the S might also slide past the barrier. No idea where they could package that though... Or, if they could chamfer the pack corners so they start angling at 25% of vehicle width, that might also do it, but it would cut pack volume and not protect outboard legs as much.

Good observations. If there isn't space in the wheel well for the angle? The wheel close to the battery.
How about they made the steel bar behind bumper wider? Right not the barrier completely bypasses the bumper and runs fairly free until the hard stop at the battery corner
 
Unfortunately, I don't have one to go look at , but from the images I've seen, the pack runs fairly close to the wheel well. So it could either run over the wheel (bumper to shock tower to outer rail), be a piece that starts out like a wider bumper, but then bends to form the guide (not reliable), or maybe a curved piece that traces out the inner tire path for clearance. Basically, a less squared off version of the attached image (which also shows the impressive rocker panels)
front corner.PNG
 

Attachments

  • front corner.PNG
    front corner.PNG
    85 KB · Views: 67
Tesla might not like the IIHS results, or respect the institute/institution, bu they do have an important voice in the field. The official Tesla response was a bit tone deaf IMHO. I would have responded with disappointment, belief in my product, and a commitment to building the safest best vehicle. Dissing the organization will not make it go away.
 
Also, based on Tesla's statement about the results (and other recent public statements), they really need to get their paranoia in check... it's not a good look.
Agreed. I would have much rather read from Tesla that they "got the message" and will address the issues. And perhaps recall those with the poor headlights for replacement. That is what I would have rather read.
 
OK, so I watched some more because the seat belt thing bugged me. And I think I found something.

When the 16 and 17 side curtain airbags go off, they end up getting between the dummy and the belt. This may be forcing the belt down the torso of the dummy, and reducing the belt's effectiveness.
Here is a view of the belt during impact:
belt_position_annotated.png
And from the outside:
belt_side_view.PNG

The 17 also appears to have a delayed activation of the side curtain relative to the steering wheel air bag, this was not present in the 16 test, but on the 16 the belt also ended up on the outside of the side curtain air bag:
belt_bag_16.PNG

Now contrast that with the IIHS 16 side impact test:

Here is the side curtain inflating on the correct side of the seat belt.
side_impact.PNG
From the rear seat view, you can see how the bag tucks in outside the seat belt:
side_back seat.PNG

What is the difference (other than crash direction)? The side impact has the windows closed, the small offset has them open.
So my questions are: Are the side curtains designed to operate best with the windows closed? Is the testing methodology impacting the results? And if so, how much?
Or is the issue the belt is not tightening (pre-tensioning) enough to counteract the side curtain airbag?


And in case you're wondering, the moderate offset test is windows down and also catches the belt.
moderate_impact.PNG
 
Why is it surprising to anyone that an organization primarily to feed data to insurers, will come up with a negative outlook for an expensive car that is difficult to repair ?

That is a straw man argument. The test itself is objectively and consistently applied across all car manufacturers. The organization behind the testing is irrelevant to the fact the Model S has an issue with this type of collision. Its not a great sign that they did worse the second time around after trying to address the issues. Tesla should be proactive and design a car that can address all these tests because they definitely feel they are selling the safest cars on the planet and I believe it but I'd like to see it when tested (and it aces the other tests except headlights which were downgraded when they went from HID to LED).
 
do people actually base their car buying of safety ratings? you have a P100D so i'm guessing not. But sure, Tesla "fails again" lol


Limited list of other cars with just an "acceptable or less" rating i can remember off the top of my head.
2014-2015 Toyota Prius prime; prius V got "poor" haha.
2016 BMW 3 series "marginal"
2015 Chevy Volt "acceptable"

2017 Prius Prime is a Top Safety Pick +
2017 BMW 3 is a Top Safety Pick +
2017 Chevy Volt is a Top Safety Pick +

2017 Tesla Model S Acceptable Frontal Offset, Acceptable Roof Strength on 100D, Poor headlights
 
  • Like
Reactions: alseTrick