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

[buttershrimp]

Are the headlights really better? I don't think they can be improved via software, probably a swap of he entire assembly. I only hope they can be retrofitted on our current gen 2016 refresh cars. I drove a pre-refresh loaner for a few months before getting my new 2017 model S and can say that the old HID projector are a lot better than the new style LED

It's a good question and I really wonder if it can... the thing that lead me to that conclusion was talking with some service folks and reading that some people were having issues with them not being leveled correctly on install.... there is a whole procedure for manually leveling the lights in service I think... the other thing was seeing the difference between the p90D I drove before I got my car... it went from below average to good.... I still hope it improves, but I have more faith in the ability for software to fix it. Also, I've been impressed by the auto high beams.

I definitely could be wrong though.

 

[William13]

Could the car be safer? Yes.

 

[Spidy]

Figures don't lie but liars figure.

So you think the convertible is safer than the sedan (4&5 column)?

Insurance loss information

 

[oktane]

Everyone really needs to take a step back from these arguments. To say a Tesla is a safe or not safe car based on a single very limited physical parameter test is absolutely ridiculous. As a practicing emergency physician for the last 25 years, I can tell you every modern day car on the road is multitudes more safe than what we were all driving two or three decades ago. We just do not see the type of injuries that even mild to moderate accidents used to produce, simply with the adoption of mandatory airbags and seatbelt laws. Is any car as safe as it could be right now? Absolutely not! Every manufacturer has to make compromises in structure/weight/cost/mass manufacturing ability. And there are accidents that no car is going to be adequate enough to save your life. If you want to be in the safest vehicle on the road, you should be looking towards the race car industry. You should have a full steel roll cage around you, a five point seatbelt harness, wear a helmet and fireproof clothing, and be sitting in a custom molded seat. Or better yet, ride around and in an M-1 Abrams Tank. I guarantee that will survive any offset crash test.

If you really want to make a change in your safety now, do just one of the following:

1. Put your freaking phone way and stop looking at it every time it makes a noise.
2. Stop listening to music or engaging in conversations while you drive. Pilots on takeoff or approach to an airport are not making small talk. It's a sterile environment so that nothing interferes with the task at hand. I'm not saying we are all able to do this when driving every day, but pay attention to the most important thing you are doing for you and your family. Drive the car without distraction.
3. Actually look out the window and scan not only the lane in front of you, but all other vehicles that are within any proximity of yours, and make a mental note of what they are actually doing or could do to interfere with your travel.
4. Don't assume other drivers are going to do what they should.
5. Maintain your vehicle mechanically; brakes, and especially tire pressures and wear on old tires. Stopping distance and maneuverability are a huge factor in avoiding any accident.

Any of these, or a huge list of others, will do more for your safety than any "acceptable" or "good" rating in a particular artificial crash test parameter. I drive a model S, and I feel about as safe as an oncoming driver is going to let me be.

Love your tips (smart) but these common sense rules due to obviate the intrinsic safety of the car. Your argument is tangential. Clearly, if I follow these tips, I would be safer in a highly IIHS rated car vs. a lower rated car.

 

[William13]

Spidy, I understand that it does not make intuitive sense that the convertible is safer than the sedan. However, the method of driving (slower, good weather and sober) and the number of miles driven are very important.

 

[William13]

As mentioned in the article the Tesla had three miles per day higher average driven than other luxury cars. I can anecdotally note that Teslas are driven quickly, in all weather, and in both local and long distance.

 

[Spidy]

Spidy, I understand that it does not make intuitive sense that the convertible is safer than the sedan. However, the method of driving (slower, good weather and sober) and the number of miles driven are very important.

Yeah, but that's exactly the point. It's not the car itself that is safer rather the drivers, driving style, environment and so on. So just because the Model S has such a good score does not mean the car itself is safer, but those other factors have a big effect. E.g. how much does it matter that many of them are sold in the sunny parts of California?

As mentioned in the article the Tesla had three miles per day higher average driven than other luxury cars. I can anecdotally note that Teslas are driven quickly, in all weather, and in both local and long distance.

And how much time do they spend in slow rush hour stop and go traffic in California?

 

[AmpedRealtor]

Musk can build reusable rockets but he can't satisfy a simple crash safety test without disparaging the body administering the test? Grow up, child genius.

 

[SO16]

Musk can build reusable rockets but he can't satisfy a simple crash safety test without disparaging the body administering the test? Grow up, child genius.

Did he say those things about the IIHS or did someone else at Tesla? I agree it was poor choice on Tesla's part. But "grow up, child genius"? Really?

 

[SO16]

I think Tesla's seatbelt problem is a legacy problem from when Tesla didn't have enough clout to purchase first tier quality components. I think Tesla Model S's seatbelt is still second tier quality, and Tesla never revamped that portion of their design. This has always been a mistake, and Tesla got used to making this mistake like a familiar sore.

One of the first fatalities in a Tesla I believe was partially because of a combination of road diet construction and the cheap seat belt. Unlike seat belts found in Volvo and Mercedes, the Tesla Model S seat belt will tighten on you continually throughout your trip, eventually cutting off your circulation and ability to breath. Eventually you get both disoriented and exasperated, and must react by reaching around to take off the seatbelt. This act is both distracting and moves you around, and as you reach you depress your feet, usually the accelerator. It is often almost a minute long task to take it off and restretch the seatbelt to put it on. I believe this is what caused the fatal crash in Los Gatos: he was trying to deal with being asphyxiated to death by the cheap seat belt.

Tesla loves to deny fault, a behavior it shares with the prior US administration. We can assume their lack of admission is meaningless until we find proper evidence of our own.

The obvious solution is so obvious I shouldn't have to say it, but for absolute completeness, I will: get the same seat belts as Mercedes has, or Volvo, or one of the better ones at least. I don't know if asphyxiating seat belts are a new mandate by law, but my 1993 Volvo and 1998 & 2005 Mercedeses did not have them.

I learned from the Los Gatos accident to take the cheap seat belt problem seriously, and whenever my Tesla Model S seatbelt tightened on me, I pulled out of traffic while releasing the seatbelt. It's a dangerous maneuver, but anything having to do with that seat belt is. By getting out of traffic, I can park and put the seat belt back on.

Since you brought politics into this for some on reason, I will reply: Because this administration and McConnell NEVER blame anyone else. LOL!!!!!!!!!

Back to the seatbelt issue, I don't have that issue on the driver side. But I did notice on the passenger side that if Is pulled way out, it tends to lock as it retracts. No different than my other vehicles.

 

[Science->Truth]

From a scientific and engineering stand point, frontal crash test ratings are only comparable for vehicle within the same weight class (this fact is also clearly stated in both IIHS and NHTSA website). In other words, if a good frontal rating car that weigh 3300 Ibs crashes head-on with another good frontal rating car that weigh 4400 Ibs (like Tesla). The 3300 Ibs car frontal rating would drop from "good" to "poor" because the lighter car would decelerate much faster than the heavier car in the collision. (faster deceleration means more injury)

Another way to look at frontal crash rating is that the "good" ratings are valid ONLY if:
1. Your car get into a single-car accident. i.e. your car hits a tree or pole, no other cars are involved.
2. You car get into a multi-car accident, where the other car weigh about the same as your car, or it weigh less than your car.

If your car get into a multi-car accident, where the other car weigh more than your car. Then you can pretty much throw the frontal rating out of the window. It doesn't apply anymore. That's where the theoretical crash test results versus real world results argument comes in.

It is simple physics, a bigger/heavier car is always much safer than a smaller/lighter car in a crash. Despite Tesla having only "acceptable" in the small overlap frontal test (and frankly pathetic response by Tesla PR team), Tesla vehicles are still significantly safer than most cars in the market simple because of its weight advantage.

Re "a bigger/heavier car is always much safer than a smaller/lighter car in a crash": only true if you add "all else equal"--equal safety belts worn correctly, equal air bags, equal *everything* else. The point that weight is one (important) factor affecting safety is correct. The implication that it overrides all other factors is false. A poorly designed heavy vehicle, like many esp older SUVs and trucks, is often less safe, sometimes much less safe, than well designed lighter vehicles.

 

[Science->Truth]

A primer on crash risks seems relevant to this meandering but interesting discussion that sometimes is mixing up different issues.

There are 4 big categories of things affecting injury/ death risks--the things we can and do improve over time with scientific/technical advances and strong government regulations (which cause widespread or universal application of such advances).

1. Road environments--such as whether the barrier/object you hit absorbs or deflects some of the energy vs. stopping you dead (immediately), or, another example, whether the road has wide shoulders, versus trees and poles at pavement edge, or whether the poles are modern breakaway ones, versus old concrete/wood solid poles. This is why, all else equal, freeways are significantly safer than other roads.
2. Things in the vehicle design that affect your probability of crashing--such as electronic stability control, automatic emergency braking, lane departure warning, good all around visibility, etc.
3. Things in the vehicle design that make injuries less severe and which lower probability of death given a crash has occurred--safety belts, collapsible steering wheels, air bags, side door reinforcements, roof crush strength, crush zone features, etc. Key here is you want a passenger-containing box that never is intruded into or deformed (by the other car, or the tree), along with belts and airbags that prevent the human from impacting the interior of that box.
4. Driver behaviors--using a phone, driving after drinking, speeding, etc.

Then there are other factors, often harder to improve when thinking only about auto safety. These emerge from laws of physiology, physics, etc. Frail people are injured a bit more easily than healthy. Heavy vehicles are more dangerous to those they hit, but safer for those they contain, all else equal.