TMC is an independent, primarily volunteer organization that relies on ad revenue to cover its operating costs. Please consider whitelisting TMC on your ad blocker and becoming a Supporting Member. For more info: Support TMC

MS fails to get top safety rating - Post Jan MS's get improvement

Discussion in 'Model S' started by 2BEnhanced, Feb 2, 2017.

  1. 2BEnhanced

    2BEnhanced Member

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2016
    Messages:
    18
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    Here is the article.
    Tesla’s new Model S fails to qualify for a top safety award

    Tesla said "One of the improvements recently introduced in January 2017 specifically addresses the “acceptable” (or second highest) rating that the Model S achieved in the small overlap frontal crash test, and we expect new tests to yield the highest possible rating (“good” rating) in the crashworthiness category"

    I have a December MS. Does anyone know if we will be retro-fitted with these safety improvements?
     
    • Informative x 1
  2. calisnow

    calisnow Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2014
    Messages:
    2,229
    Location:
    Los Angeles
    Very good question - I read the changes were implemented January 23rd.
     
  3. ev-now

    ev-now Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    430
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Doubt it - "Acceptable" sounds bad, but it's the second best rating and by definition is considered acceptable. That said if it's as simple as a tweak to the seat belt mechanism there might be a chance.

    The whole things is a little weird as this is the 2017 ratings, and uses a vehicle known to have partial features enabled and an expected timeline of them being switched on.

    But hey I am sure you and other bought in part on the "safest sedan" pitch, the question is whether it's reasonable to expect the car to keep being upgraded to keep that standard.

    We're in strange expectation territory as for other manufacturers (Jeep, GM, Ford/Firestone) there has been real evidence of life-threatening risk and they've still resisted a recall, let alone proactively trying to improve from Acceptable to Good on a non-mandatory test.
     
  4. Snowstorm

    Snowstorm Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2016
    Messages:
    296
    Location:
    Ontario Canada
    Continuous upgrade to maintain "best" is likely not reasonable. But retrofitted / services to meet best at time of purchase would be in my opinion.

    I am actually quite disappointed at he poor headlight performance. It isn't not that expensive of a part and yet is rated near the bottom of the stack. Tesla should have know at part sourcing time that it was subpar and demanded better from he vendor or switched
     
  5. ev-now

    ev-now Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    430
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    In this case it seems the headlights, a core component to safety, are "inadequate" in many situations according the IIHS - that may yet be a critical safety concern but I could not find a definition of inadequate. So I dug deeper on their site.

    When I looked to compare the MS performance with others I found:

    BMW 5 - there is no test data for headlights,
    Merc E-Class (there's not even a test of a S) - no test data for headlights.
    Maserati Ghibli (2017) - no test data for headlights
    Audi A6 - same rating as MS
    Audi Q7 - same rating as MS
    Lexus - ES350 - finally Acceptable (except on the Bi-LEDs which are marginal) BUT go look at the light pattern, with the exception of two of the 5 paths tested, the lights are the same as the Tesla
    Infinity Q70 - again Acceptable, but looking at the light paths, again it's actually very close to the MS performance
    Even Volvo S90 (the safety brand?) - Margin overall performance for headlights

    So IIHS appears to have introduced a new test, and defined a standard that many/most of the perceived higher end brands do not meet - making Tesla's performance within the "norm".
     
    • Informative x 4
  6. ev-now

    ev-now Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    430
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Interesting how many brands have no test data on IIHS - Porsche, Range Rover (there are Landrover vehicles), Jaguar (nothing later than 2008) - I have no idea if that is because IIHS only takes cars that are volunteered by the manufacturer or whether they are usually focused on lower end brands.

    I've given up looking now - but basically the majority of vehicles do not have any headlight test data (Cadillac XTS 2017, Ford Mustang), and the ones which do all perform within feet of the Tesla - resulting in them almost universally have Margin performance, and some Poor depending on light path tested.

    So I'd say Tesla were and are right at industry norm, and IIHS have shone a light on a possible weakness in almost all production vehicles. Now what I do not know is whether their assessment are valid - after all when was an accident last attributed to "ineffective illumination on the subject vehicle".

    Very interesting data to review, and shows there's a lot of context needed to understand some of these broad statements (in the media, and indeed in the IIHS report).
     
  7. stopcrazypp

    stopcrazypp Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2007
    Messages:
    8,821
    Fair point on the headlight standard (I didn't know that existed either). But the seatbelt performance was disappointing (note by disappointing I don't mean it's bad, just that it's not the top pick that was expected of Tesla), although something Tesla can relatively easily fix (although I'm not sure about retrofits).
     
  8. ev-now

    ev-now Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2015
    Messages:
    430
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    Agree on seat-belt, though that is hard to 'dig deeper' on with the IIHS methodology and data.
     
  9. Spidy

    Spidy Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2015
    Messages:
    1,118
    Location:
    Germany
    The i3 has an Acceptable rating. The BMW 2-Series got a Good (optional equipment). At the end of the day all safety ratings are going to have some bias that's why it's incredible difficult to define something like the safest car.
     
  10. Maximapolak

    Maximapolak Member

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2016
    Messages:
    459
    Location:
    North NJ / SouthCentral PA
  11. MS16

    MS16 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2017
    Messages:
    330
    Location:
    Calif
    Reading the IIHS report, changes were made in September and October to try and improve the small and moderate overlap test results. IIHS apparently retested the vehicle with those changes and it's those results we now see posted. Given that....

    What does this mean for Model S units built before Sept/October 2016?
    What kind of ratings would apply to the 2012 to October 2016 models? Would the moderate overlap be less than Good?

    Even with the changes in the Fall, the results were still not good enough to earn a Good score in the small overlap, so there's no guarantee that the additional changes made in January will improve the results.

    From the report:

    Beginning with 2016 models built after September 2016, the side curtain airbags were lengthened to improve occupant protection in small overlap frontal crashes.


    Beginning with 2016 models built after October 2016, a structural brace between the frame and rocker panel was reinforced and deployment guides were added to the side curtain airbags to improve occupant protection in moderate overlap frontal crashes.

    I'm curious what the results would be if your particular vehicle does not have the new lengthened side curtain airbags, the reinforced structural brace, and the new deployment guides for the side curtain airbags. Is there anyway to find the test results from the first IIHS test?
     
    • Informative x 2

Share This Page