Is the high windshield safe?

[Thegreatdane]

For the record this is not an unlikely event in Northern Scandinavia and I would presume parts of the US and Canada as well. In 2012 there were 5963 traffic incidents with moose in Sweden - Source.

Over the years the number of fatalities have dropped quite a bit and you can thank Volvo and Saab for this. They test all new cars with a moose test. Source.

In some places in northern Sweden up to 40% of all traffic accidents involve game. Source.

We don't have wild moose here in Denmark, so the above statistics will not keep me from putting my order in. Had I lived in Sweden I might have had a different view.

 

[Vitold]

For the record this is not an unlikely event in Northern Scandinavia and I would presume parts of the US and Canada as well. In 2012 there were 5963 traffic incidents with moose in Sweden - Source.

Over the years the number of fatalities have dropped quite a bit and you can thank Volvo and Saab for this. They test all new cars with a moose test. Source.

In some places in northern Sweden up to 40% of all traffic accidents involve game. Source.

We don't have wild moose here in Denmark, so the above statistics will not keep me from putting my order in. Had I lived in Sweden I might have had a different view.

If moose is going to fly through the windshield, it'll do it through conventional windshield as well as panoramic.

Moose test you link to measures how well a car can perform sudden evasive maneuver which is not a concern for Tesla due to low center of gravity (Moose test fail video).

Looking at this video of simulated elk/moose crash it appears that Model X with reinforced pillars and roof would pass this test. In addition frontal crumple zone of X, which is larger than any ICE car, should lessen the impact in other circumstances.

 

[ecarfan]

@Vitold, where did you find that graphic of the X safety features? And what is that large upright item in the trunk area?

You have a full roll-bar in Model X. If anything, one should worry about cars with sunroofs rather than Model X with panoramic windshield
View attachment 109409

 

[Vitold]

It's a charger. The screenshot is from Tesla's Emergency Response Guide.

 

[PeterK]

@Vitold, where did you find that graphic of the X safety features? And what is that large upright item in the trunk area?

Looks like first responders instruction manual, and my guess is that's the charger as the yellow seems to be electrical system related - battery, motors and connections as well.

 

[AudubonB]

That graphic and many others come from the Emergency Response Guide. The greenish items in the picture show the members of the Model X that are made out of an exceptionally strong steel; the ones you ask about are the rear hatch's hydraulic lift cylinders.

As I understand it, the OP's question referred to the safety of a swept-back windshield as opposed to that of a more conventional vehicle's smaller glass + steel roof arrangement. Having lived in Alaska for decades, I have seen the aftermath of many, many moose collisions such as the one shown earlier. In my considered response, there is little if any effective difference in that situation between a Model X windshield and the alternative. But from an item "falling from above", as asked? As in a concrete block dropped from an overpass? Well, if it precisely hit that portion of a Model X that is glass where it would have been a steel roof in another vehicle, I'm confident the Model X occupants would fare worse.

And I think the number of times per billion vehicle-miles of that occurring is as close to 0 as to make no difference.

 

[Vitold]

That graphic and many others come from the Emergency Response Guide. The greenish items in the picture show the members of the Model X that are made out of an exceptionally strong steel; the ones you ask about are the rear hatch's hydraulic lift cylinders.

Well, if it precisely hit that portion of a Model X that is glass where it would have been a steel roof in another vehicle, I'm confident the Model X occupants would fare worse.

And I think the number of times per billion vehicle-miles of that occurring is as close to 0 as to make no difference.

Danger you speak of is similar for cars with sunroofs. One of the differences is that where most sunroofs are above drivers head panoramic windshield is mostly not (depending on seating position).

 

[PeterK]

And I think the number of times per billion vehicle-miles of that occurring is as close to 0 as to make no difference.

I recall this case of a bowling ball being dropped off an overpass in the NYC area, going through a windshield and killing a little girl. Youth Is Held In Death From Bowling Ball - NYTimes.com

Unfortunately, when I googled "bowling ball overpass" at least half a dozen incidents came up. Sick people. But I doubt there's much difference between an X and a normal car in these cases.

 

[AudubonB]

I can't tell from your writing if you're probing whether these incidents occur, or not. Just to reiterate that my prognostication/probability was

if it precisely hit that portion of a Model X that is glass where it would have been a steel roof in another vehicle

; not whether there are sickos out there.

 

[PeterK]

I can't tell from your writing if you're probing whether these incidents occur, or not. Just to reiterate that my prognostication/probability was ; not whether there are sickos out there.[/COLOR]

I agree with you. Plus given the flatter angle of the windshield at that point and the forward motion of a moving car there is a chance the object would be deflected whether glass or metal there. Just surprised to see how many sickos there are out there.

 

[Thegreatdane]

Moose test you link to measures how well a car can perform sudden evasive maneuver which is not a concern for Tesla due to low center of gravity (Moose test fail video).

I'm aware of the nature of the moose test. However, please note that "Both Volvo and Saab have a tradition of taking moose crashes into account when building cars." Volvo's new system has "large animal detection, which can detect creatures like elk, horses and moose during the day or night, and either warns the driver or primes the brakes to help avoid a collision".

I'm a big Tesla fan and will take delivery of my Model X but if I lived in Sweden I would go for a XC90

 

[Vitold]

I'm aware of the nature of the moose test. However, please note that "Both Volvo and Saab have a tradition of taking moose crashes into account when building cars." Volvo's new system has "large animal detection, which can detect creatures like elk, horses and moose during the day or night, and either warns the driver or primes the brakes to help avoid a collision".

I'm a big Tesla fan and will take delivery of my Model X but if I lived in Sweden I would go for a XC90

Volvo uses Mobileye just as Tesla is. I would expect their avoidance system capabilities to be similar though we know that Tesla tweaks theirs more. Speaking of XC90, one review I read, that was very positive in all other respects, commented that Volvo anti-collision system was braking for no reason (had many false positives).

 

[ohmman]

And I think the number of times per billion vehicle-miles of that occurring is as close to 0 as to make no difference.

Agreed. And I'm sure it's well offset by the overall safety of the MX compared to the competition. So if someone is choosing a different vehicle because of this one specific potential, they are willfully ignoring the much more likely occurrence of a traditional vehicle-on-vehicle accident. That's the human brain at work - giving the most colorful anecdote more weight, despite the risk being lower.

 

[deonb]

Granted, there's no "falcon rocket attempts to land on windshield" test, but I think that's an unlikely event

The problem is not so much when the Falcon rocket lands on the car, but the damage it does when it falls over after :tongue:

 

[AudubonB]

I'm aware of the nature of the moose test. However, please note that "Both Volvo and Saab have a tradition of taking moose crashes into account when building cars." Volvo's new system has "large animal detection, which can detect creatures like elk, horses and moose during the day or night, and either warns the driver or primes the brakes to help avoid a collision".

I'm a big Tesla fan and will take delivery of my Model X but if I lived in Sweden I would go for a XC90

Someone else can volunteer to do the leg-work in finding the video clip, but Mr Musk did expound upon Tesla's avoidance system being able to detect "small furry things".

 

[PeterK]

Someone else can volunteer to do the leg-work in finding the video clip, but Mr Musk did expound upon Tesla's avoidance system being able to detect "small furry things".

I think that may have been in relation to summoning the car or having it meet you in the driveway based on your calendar, not about highway speeds.

But I would guess Mobileye and/or radar would detect and respond to a large animal in the road ahead. Issue is when they suddenly bolt out in front - how do Volvo and Saab detect that?

 

[Vitold]

I think that may have been in relation to summoning the car or having it meet you in the driveway based on your calendar, not about highway speeds.

But I would guess Mobileye and/or radar would detect and respond to a large animal in the road ahead. Issue is when they suddenly bolt out in front - how do Volvo and Saab detect that?

It's a matter of marketing. I'd imagine US market could care less for Moose avoidance system. I volunteer to find a video where Volvo is not detecting big non-furry mammals:

 

[pvogel]

I'm aware of the nature of the moose test. However, please note that "Both Volvo and Saab have a tradition of taking moose crashes into account when building cars." Volvo's new system has "large animal detection, which can detect creatures like elk, horses and moose during the day or night, and either warns the driver or primes the brakes to help avoid a collision".

I'm a big Tesla fan and will take delivery of my Model X but if I lived in Sweden I would go for a XC90

I'd venture to say that the Tesla will do better. Side collision detection and avoidance would have kept my dad from some pretty major injuries when a moose charged his Camry from the driver's side down hill and slammed into the driver door, caving it in several inches (the moose got up and walked away). Had the car auto-steered away from the T-bone it would have reduced the energy of the impact significantly.

Similarly, the front collision avoidance would significantly slow the car before the impact (even if it's coming from the side because the detection cone is wide and it projects the path of the oncoming mass) and pretension the seatbelts, etc.

Peter+

 

[AudubonB]

I'd imagine US market could care less for Moose avoidance system.

Snarky response: Yes, that's your imagination.

Less snarky: Moose and our other large cervid, Wapiti (aka "elk" in NoAm) in themselves may be of concern only in about a dozen US states and most Canadian provinces, but the still-hefty white-tailed and mule deer are clear and very present dangers in, I think, 49 states. Caribou are a problem only in Alaska and some Canadian provinces.

As an aside, 25 TeslaPoints to the first who correctly names the animal that Alaskans really get nightmares over colliding with.

 

[pvogel]

Snarky response: Yes, that's your imagination.

Less snarky: Moose and our other large cervid, Wapiti (aka "elk" in NoAm) in themselves may be of concern only in about a dozen US states and most Canadian provinces, but the still-hefty white-tailed and mule deer are clear and very present dangers in, I think, 49 states. Caribou are a problem only in Alaska and some Canadian provinces.

As an aside, 25 TeslaPoints to the first who correctly names the animal that Alaskans really get nightmares over colliding with.

Grizzly Bear