Roof Strength - Model S vs Chevy Bolt

[anticitizen13.7]

What is incorrect? The fact that a 2010 Mercedes E-Class has a stronger roof than a Model S and Tesla still claimed in 2013 that the Model S roof is so exceptionally strong that it broke the machine? Regardless, Musk's claim was made in reference to the 4x strength to weight ratio.

2010 Mercedes E-Class

Peak force 20,961 lbs
Strength-to-weight ratio 5.40


2016 Tesla Model S

Peak force 19,271 lbs
Strength-to-weight ratio 4.33

The huge list you posted includes the Honda Fit, for example.

Roof force peak is about 12,900 lbs., less than the Model S.

In absolute terms the Fit has a weaker roof in this test than Model S. only in ratio of force to weight is it superior.

 

[MS16]

Harping on one stat is pointless.

Yet that is the stat that Musk himself chose to 'harp on'. it is also that stat that got repeated endlessly in the media and on here. Little did we know until the IIHS results were published that the Model S roof is actually much weaker than many other cars and the 100D roof is only rated 'acceptable'. Quite a difference than what most people believed.

Here is one of the quotes where Musk harps on that roof strength stat.

"Musk also boasted about the roof crush test in an interview on "CBS This Morning" on Wednesday.

"When we did the roof crush test, it got to four times the weight of the car, and then the machine broke," Musk told CBS. "So, literally the thing that is supposed to crush the car broke instead of the car."

Tesla's boasts about its safety test doubted

So Musk is literally bragging about a result as if it were something exceptional, when in fact there were countless cars that achieved much better results and even did so years earlier.

To this day, the Model S still is not a top pick in the IIHS ratings

 

[MS16]

Ford C-MAX, 24,462 lb, just as an example.

View attachment 233530

A 6.8 strength to weight ratio and 24,462 is an admirable result, especially for a car released in 2012.

 

[McRat]

Insurance loss information

Real world loss/casualty data shows that for 2013-2015 RWD Tesla Model S, personal injury and medical payment costs are 61% and 54% better than average.

This compares favorably with the BMW 5-Series RWD at 27 and 4 better than average, and Mercedes Benz E-class at 18% better and 11% worse in those same categories. AWD data was not available for the Model S in that time frame.

Harping on one stat is pointless.

Consumers should look at a broad range of safety stats.

Yes, they should. Claims have more factors than you think.

Lowest personal injury (occupant) claim frequency: Personal injury protection IIHS, safest first:

Porsche 911 Carrera 2dr
Porsche Boxster convertible
Land Rover Range Rover 4dr 4WD
GMC Sierra 3500 crew cab 4WD
Porsche Cayman 2dr
Chevrolet Corvette convertible
Mercedes-Benz SL class convertible
Porsche 911 Carrera convertible
Chevrolet Silverado 2500 ext. cab 4WD
Tesla Model S 4dr electric 2WD

What do all of these cars have in common? Mostly miles per year, price, and age of drivers.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

So Musk is literally bragging about a result as if it were something exceptional, when in fact there were countless cars that achieved much better results and even did so years earlier.

To this day, the Model S still is not a top pick in the IIHS ratings

I am sorry this upsets you so much.

But next time you should know what you are arguing first. Your error in conflating absolute strength with strength to weight ratio was avoidable.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

Yes, they should. Claims have more factors than you think.

Lowest personal injury (occupant) claim frequency: Personal injury protection IIHS, safest first:

Porsche 911 Carrera 2dr
Porsche Boxster convertible
Land Rover Range Rover 4dr 4WD
GMC Sierra 3500 crew cab 4WD
Porsche Cayman 2dr
Chevrolet Corvette convertible
Mercedes-Benz SL class convertible
Porsche 911 Carrera convertible
Chevrolet Silverado 2500 ext. cab 4WD
Tesla Model S 4dr electric 2WD

What do all of these cars have in common? Mostly miles per year, price, and age of drivers.

Obviously context matters.

Which is why I compared the Model S to the BMW 5-Series and Mercedes Benz E-class. It would be unhelpful to merely point out that Model S has better than average claims for the entire universe of cars. A car can be better than average for all cars, but worse than its peers.

 

[SageBrush]

A partial list of cars in 2013 that had roof test results

That is a very interesting list, if only because I wonder how much time you spent in its making.

 

[anticitizen13.7]

That is a very interesting list, if only because I wonder how much time you spent in its making.

I'm guessing not very much time, given the carelessness of MS16's argument. There are cars on that list which have substantially lower absolute roof strength than Model S.

MS16 appears to have pulled a list of top safety picks from IIHS and then copy/past hastily without looking at the actual stats.

 

[SageBrush]

This link has nice videos of the actual test.
Until I'm told otherwise, my take-away is that the test is meant to simulate cabin intrusion of the roof in a roll-over. We should note that the simulation is of one particular angle on the roof

From my perspective then, the derived number that matters would be G force leading to probable injury. The force/weight is not instructive, since it allows the testing agency to put classes into different sizes but that does not normalize to safety since the angular speeds are not considered.
Moreover, in actual crashes the center of gravity of the car presumably plays a role in the eventual G forces applied on the roof.

OP may indeed have "caught" Tesla in some marketing hype, but I'm a lot more interested in actual roll-over likelihood and safety. In that the Tesla does great

 

[MS16]

That is a very interesting list, if only because I wonder how much time you spent in its making.

I cut and pasted the list of 2013 IIHS Top Pick winners that had scores of 4g or better in response to the question below. That person said Musk's claim was accurate at the time and asked for roofs that had scores of 4g or better. The list shows an extensive number of 2013 cars that met or exceeded the 4g score that Musk claimed was something extraordinary. It's actually more difficult to find cars that did not meet the 4g score.

That claim was made in August 2013.

The machine broke at 4g.
Again, tell us what cars from 2013 had stronger roofs?

Do you believe that Musk's claims of an unusually exceptional roof strength score is accurate?

 

[MS16]

2010 Mercedes E-Class

Peak force 20,961 lbs
Strength-to-weight ratio 5.40

2017 Mercedes E-Class

Peak force 23,517 lbs
Strength-to-weight ratio 6.18

2017 Tesla Model S60 (result does not apply to 100D, where the ratio is below 4.0)

Peak force 19,271 lbs
Strength-to-weight ratio 4.33 (below 4.0 for 100D)

So Musk's 'safest cars ever' and 'roof so strong it broke the machine' has a roof that is weaker than a 2010 Mercedes E-Class.

 

[SageBrush]

So Musk's 'safest cars ever' and 'roof so strong it broke the machine' has a roof that is weaker than a 2010 Mercedes E-Class.

I think so, but ignore the hype:

The roof is well above the threshold for best category crash testing, and the low center of gravity of the car means it either does not flip over at all or does so slower. The end result matters, right ?

 

[MS16]

I think so, but ignore the hype:

The roof is well above the threshold for best category crash testing?

Well above the threshold?

The S100 is below the 4.0 threshold

The lightest weight S is just barely into the green category

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

What are we even arguing about? I'm not sure I understand the passion in this thread.

Sure back in 2013 Elon bragged about the strength of the roof. That brag might not have had a lot to back it up, but what happened made for a funny story.

So what? No one really called him on it. It's not like MB came out and said "what a minute here, our car has an even higher roof strength". I don't think Elon lied factually. He may have stretched things bit, but when hasn't he?

Back in 2013 the strength of the roof exceeded what it needed to be.

Since then we've seen a few things happen.

The Model S has gotten heavier. Remember that titanium plate they added? When I'm driving I'm a little more concerned about what might come up at me versus something landing on me. At least I haven't had any Cessna's land on me yet.

The industry has made some awesome strides in having safer cars due to better modeling. I would be really surprised if the roof of the Model 3 wasn't really freakin strong. I can't wait till the Model 3 owners can laugh at our puny roofs.

Newer heavier battery packs. The old 60 was never made in much volume.

 

[McRat]

2017 Tesla Model S

The small offset test is now a problem.

Not a good way to handle things:

Tesla Response To IIHS Crash Test Is Irresponsible And Uncalled For

 

[anticitizen13.7]

What are we even arguing about? I'm not sure I understand the passion in this thread.

MS16 is clearly very upset by Tesla and takes every opportunity to lash out in anger against Tesla and Elon Musk.

Look at MS16's post history and this will be apparent.

2017 Tesla Model S

The small offset test is now a problem.

Not a good way to handle things:

Tesla Response To IIHS Crash Test Is Irresponsible And Uncalled For

A rating of "acceptable" in one score is hardly a problem. For a car whose frame is from the 2012 era, I'm surprised it did that well.

Many cars of that era scored "poor" (2 levels below acceptable) when IIHS began using the small overlap test. The 2009-2015 generation Honda Pilot and the 2012 Toyota Camry both scored "poor" in small overlap. Particularly shocking for Honda, which had touted its Advanced Compatibility Engineering frames as able to cope with a wide variety of collision types.

I'd expect Tesla to improve the Model S frame over time. There may not be a substantial overhaul soon though, given their more limited engineering resources relative to Honda or Toyota.

 

[MS16]

What are we even arguing about? I'm not sure I understand the passion in this thread.

Sure back in 2013 Elon bragged about the strength of the roof. That brag might not have had a lot to back it up, but what happened made for a funny story.

So what? No one really called him on it. It's not like MB came out and said "what a minute here, our car has an even higher roof strength". I don't think Elon lied factually. He may have stretched things bit, but when hasn't he?

Back in 2013 the strength of the roof exceeded what it needed to be.

Since then we've seen a few things happen.

The Model S has gotten heavier. Remember that titanium plate they added? When I'm driving I'm a little more concerned about what might come up at me versus something landing on me. At least I haven't had any Cessna's land on me yet.

The industry has made some awesome strides in having safer cars due to better modeling. I would be really surprised if the roof of the Model 3 wasn't really freakin strong. I can't wait till the Model 3 owners can laugh at our puny roofs.

Newer heavier battery packs. The old 60 was never made in much volume.

I'm not sure there's an argument. The claim and the test results are very clear.

Musk claimed that the Model S has an exceptionally strong roof. A roof so incredibly strong it broke the machine that was supposed to break the car.

Thanks to the IIHS we now know the claim was off base. The Model S 100D does not even get a Good roof strength rating. The lightest S barely crosses into the lower end of the Good rating. The Bolt has a stronger roof than the S. Cars produced years before the Model S ever came out had stronger roofs, both in terms of strength to weight ratios and peak strength. The list of cars with stronger roofs at the time the claim was made is extensive.

In short, there was nothing exceptional about the Model S roof strength then and there certainly isn't anything exceptional now.

 

[S4WRXTTCS]

I'm not sure there's an argument. The claim and the test results are very clear.

Musk claimed that the Model S has an exceptionally strong roof. A roof so incredibly strong it broke the machine that was supposed to break the car.

Thanks to the IIHS we now know the claim was off base. The Model S 100D does not even get a Good roof strength rating. The lightest S barely crosses into the lower end of the Good rating. The Bolt has a stronger roof than the S. Cars produced years before the Model S ever came out had stronger roofs, both in terms of strength to weight ratios and peak strength. The list of cars with stronger roofs at the time the claim was made is extensive.

In short, there was nothing exceptional about the Model S roof strength then and there certainly isn't anything exceptional now.

You're a little late now though.

It's not like we couldn't have researched exactly what the strength was in comparison to other cars back in 2013, but no one bothered.

Elon has always had a bit of hubris so nothing new there. It's both his super power in attracting people, and in tackling complex problems. But, it's also his kryptonite that gets him into trouble.

Back in 2013 I was a little irked that the IIHS didn't test the Model S. I felt like the IIHS did a better overall job of determining crash worthiness, and it was unfortunate not to have the test data. But, it's been so long now that it's better to just let actual crash injury data be the judge. All these tests are really just trying to determine what that is. Within that data I don't see anything that stands out.

In terms of real world safety I'm just not seeing any reason for concern EXCEPT in two areas.

One is the lights. Have they fixed it? This came up in some testing that said the new LED ones were subpar.

The second is the seat belts and the offset test. The seat belts have always been pretty crappy. So crappy in fact that people have resorted to extenders and adjusters. I say this as someone where the seatbelts fit fine, but not for some of my passengers over time.

It's fine to be critical of Tesla, but at least be on target with the criticism that an actual owner cares about.

 

[MS16]

I'd say there are even more areas or concern. The Poor rated headlamps, the low frontal offset and structure ratings, and the low roof strength ratings for the heavier models and the barely good rating for the lightest models. When cars like the Bolt and or a 5 year old C-Max blow away your test results, you know you're in trouble, especially if you want to claim, Safest Cars Evah!

IIHS gave Tesla three bites at the crash test apple, and Tesla still failed to get a good rating, so I think there is some concern there too.

Tesla hasn't fixed the headlight problem and probably won't be able to until they switch to the more expensive projector lights from the reflector style they're using now.

Companies covet the IIHS Top Pick awards and advertise them a lot, so I'd disagree that it's something owners don't care about. Certainly Musk thought crash test results were important, until they weren't.

 

[Snowstorm]

The roof strength test should really factor likihood to roll on the roof as a metric. It is using a weight factor and not actual raw strength so it is measuring safety in case you roll rather than something falling on your car. You would be much safer in a 4x weight strength roof in a low and wide car (eg Model S) that is hard to roll than a 5x weight strength roof on a tippy SUV or tall hatch.