Tesla & BMW Fall Short in IIHS Safety Tests

[croman]

They've already made changes...

That said, it's not as though it got a "marginal" or "poor" rating in the single test that earned it less than "Good." There was a very specific issue, during a very specific test...and none of it requires a design change to the structure of the vehicle. The vehicle was awarded 5-stars from two other tests...it'll be okay.

Clearly it required a design change, they modified their construction of the vehicles after the test results were known. Frankly Good is good enough for the kind of car this is and the money people spend AND based on Tesla's own statements about safety.

 

[JohnSnowNW]

Clearly it required a design change, they modified their construction of the vehicles after the test results were known. Frankly Good is good enough for the kind of car this is and the money people spend AND based on Tesla's own statements about safety.

No, they didn't modify the construction of the vehicle, it appears they modified the seat belt in some way.

You do realize these automotive companies specifically design their vehicles for these testing regiments? There are many real world crash scenarios that aren't represented. There is plenty of real world crash data to support the safeness of the vehicle. If this one very specific instance bothers you that much, then, fine, nothing I say is going to alleviate that concern. I certainly hope you find Tesla's remedy acceptable.

 

[DFibRL8R]

Here are some of the better examples I could find of real-world crashes in which the Model S rolls over or has the roof crushed. I personally like these roof crush tests where real people survive with minor (or no) injuries better than calculated strength to weight ratios in IIHS labs.

TESLA UPDATES: [Gallery] Tesla Model S driver and his son survived a serious accident in the Netherlands with minor injuries

Tesla Model S driver walks away from crash with a truck at ‘tremendous speed’

Tesla Model S Keeps Occupants Safe From Landslide, Falling Tree

Spectacular Tesla Model S crash after flying 82+ft in the air shows importance of a large crumple zone [Gallery]

 

[Jlwine]

Agreed, havent upgraded yet for a few reasons and one of them is the headlights. Not sure why people arent making more noise at how poor the new headlights are over the old. The spread of light is weaker and the LED overlap is pretty bad (seeing each LED band instead of a smooth uniform spread of light like the classic model).

What am I missing here? I have a facelift Model S delivered in July of last year, it does have the premium lighting package that includes Tesla's version of "adaptive headlights" Hands down the brightest and best headlights I have ever had in any car. My previous two card were Jaguars both with Xenon HID's and this is so much brighter and well focused. Passengers often comment on them. The only weakness I see is the "high beams" are not as bright as my last vehicle--but the low beams are fantastic!

 

[Frankman60]

I also think my 2016 Refreshed MS has fantastic road illumination with the adaptive headlights that are part of the premium package. I am wondering if the adaptive LED headlights are different from the standard LED headlights other than the side LEDs that light up while making a turn? Did IIHS rate the headlight performance on the adaptive LED headlights or the standard LED headlights? Even though I like the headlight performance, I think that the lighting pattern from the LEDs is not as uniform as other LED headlights I have seen.

 

[jeffro01]

The roof comments by IIHS are straight BS... Only judging on strength to weight ratio and then going even further to say they downgraded it because the 100 is slightly heavier? Am I missing something?

Crash testing is important as someone needs to verify, or dispute, whatever the manufacturer says about the safety of their cars... However, in this case, having seen how Teslas behave in real world collisions nothing IIHS said or did even questions my 100% confidence that I'm driving the safest car money can buy.

Jeff

 

[DFibRL8R]

This report does expose one of the challenges Tesla has in it's rapid pace of innovation as well as the number of variables/options in terms of battery size/motor configuration that effect the curb weight of the vehicle. Just because IIHS says they tested a 2016 Model S doesn't mean what is concluded from their test applies to all owners of a 2016 Model S depending on timing of their build, options etc. The conclusion that the headlights suck on a 2016 Model S may be inaccurate given the different configurations that exist.

 

[Xenoilphobe]

I don't understand. My 90d 2016 has adaptive headlights and they rock!! My 2014 classic p85 has HID and they suck. Also the tethers are BS. That only affects the 60. The 9 pound difference between a p90d and a p100d really made the roof less safe? Something smells fishy. Cui Bono? Did they really crush test the roof and do calculations?

 

[ebwb]

All the test details here: Vehicle details

Some interesting facts/data released today:

Roof strength: Current Model S can take a peak force of 19,271 lbs before the roof compresses by 5 inches. The "Good" rating is based on a strength-to-weight ratio (SWR). The lightest Model S 60 weighs 4,452 lbs, resulting in a SWR of 4.33. A minimum SWR of 4 is required for a "Good" rating. Therefore, any Model S that weighs more than 4,817 lbs has an "Acceptable" roof strength rather than "Good."

Model S P100D weighs more, which results in a SWR below 4. Despite the hoopla about Model S breaking the roof crushing machine, it appears its roof strength is good, but nothing exceptional. As a reference, the current Mercedes C-Class can take a peak force of 24,642 lbs before the roof compresses by 5 inches. It weighs 3,552 lbs and therefore has a SWR ratio of 7.

Improvements over time: Today we learn that Tesla made changes in 2016 to improve IIHS test performance. Models built after August 2016 have improved head restraints. Models built after September 2016 have redesigned curtain airbags for improved small overlap performance. Models built after October 2016 have reinforced B-pillars and roofrails, as well as deployment guides for the side curtain airbags, for improved side impact protection and roof strength.

It appears the small overlap test occured on September 15, 2016: Jack Salzwedel on Twitter

Headlights: Premium upgrades improve headlight performance in curves, but not enough to get above a "Poor" rating. Both the low and high beams are reflector LEDs, rather than projectors. It appears the better performing headlights are LED projectors (e.g., Volt, i3, and Prius Prime).

Side impact protection: The current Model S did well here. The B-pillar stopped short of the seat centerline by 20.5 cm. Here's how the side structure compares, for reference.

Volvo XC90 (current): -27.0 cm
Mercedes E-class (previous gen): -24.0 cm
Tesla Model S (current): -20.5 cm
Mercedes C-Class (current): -20.5 cm
Volvo S90 (current): -18.5 cm
Chevrolet Volt (current): -18.0 cm
BMW i3 (current): -16.0 cm

Model S will become a Top Safety+ plus once Tesla addresses seatbelt performance (small overlap), improves the headlights, improves roof strength (only needed for heaviest models), and activates full AEB (Automatic Emergency Braking) on cars with the new hardware.

 

[chillaban]

And here's the video of the small overlap test that was given 'acceptable' rating.

Chevy Volt - Top Safety Pick - for comparison:

Two electric cars miss IIHS awards

One thing to note is that during this particular test (small overlap) car's structure has to contend only with it's own inertia. Tesla being heavier requires stronger structure that's why it fares well in real life collisions.

Did anyone notice that the video clearly shows an AP1 car with a MobileEye camera and no side cameras? I wonder why they didn't test the AEB/FCW systems and instead reported on AP2's system not being activated.

 

[DFibRL8R]

Model S will become a Top Safety+ plus once Tesla addresses seatbelt performance (small overlap), improves the headlights, improves roof strength (only needed for heaviest models), and activates full AEB (Automatic Emergency Braking) on cars with the new hardware.

Thanks for the nice summary. The roof crush assessment would obviously benefit from reduced weight which should be coming eventually with newer batteries with higher energy density. The decrease in weight would also help efficiency. That said, I would argue that overall for safety, I would rather have a heavier car in the majority of collision-types. Statistically, it is very unlikely you would ever rely on the roof crush strength to save your life in a Model S given it's tendency to resist rollover.

 

[McRat]

Don't bet too heavily (har) on weight being a helping hand.

In the USA, 55% of all fatalities are single vehicle crashes. Weight works against you when a car loses control, or hits an immovable object.

 

[jaguar36]

Rollovers do happen in Tesla's. Just take a look at the salvage auctions. They aren't particularly common, say 1 out of ten accidents where there were likely severe injuries is a rollover, but still I bet that 1 would sure like a stronger roof.

So while I would put far more weight into the frontal tests, the roof strength test is important, and something Tesla should improve.

 

[DFibRL8R]

Don't bet too heavily (har) on weight being a helping hand.

In the USA, 55% of all fatalities are single vehicle crashes. Weight works against you when a car loses control, or hits an immovable object.

In single vehicle crashes (just like IIHS is testing in their offset frontal impact), the Model S does exceptionally well maintaining structural integrity of the occupant space in these crashes despite it's weight due to large crumple zone (frunk) and design/materials.

As for your 55% number, that leaves an awful lot of crashes that involve collisions with other vehicles and mass matters in these. As an EMS and emergency physician, I have personally seen the aftermath of many mismatched collisions. The sad fact is there are many people driving full-sized SUV/Pickup battering rams out there. It doesn't matter how well a Smart car holds up when IIHS crash-tests it into a fixed object, the aftermath is not pretty in the real world.

This particular crash comes to mind where the occupants of the Honda were on the loosing end of this physics match up with a Model S.

http://jalopnik.com/tesla-model-s-driver-veers-into-oncoming-traffic-kills-466292380

 

[TexasTeslaRacing]

The i3 does have a great crash test rating, however if the Model S/X and i3 were in an accident I would always want to be in the heavier vehicle. This was posted awhile ago but the Tesla knocked over a semi or the semi just swerved/over corrected too much and fell on its side.

Semi Truck Flips After Collision With Tesla Model S

 

[MuppetOwl]

I don't understand. My 90d 2016 has adaptive headlights and they rock!! My 2014 classic p85 has HID and they suck. Also the tethers are BS. That only affects the 60. The 9 pound difference between a p90d and a p100d really made the roof less safe? Something smells fishy. Cui Bono? Did they really crush test the roof and do calculations?

The new led lights are worse than the Xenon.
Tesla Model S LED Headlamp Insight

As you can see on the compare pictures they light to bright just in front of the car, But not as far as the older xenon lights that also is bad compared to Audi, Bmw.

 

[⚡️ELECTROMAN⚡️]

I would like to see a head-on collision test between all of these cars and/or a head-on collision test with a full size SUV. I'm also wondering if this is going to affect our insurance rates.

 

[croman]

I would like to see a head-on collision test between all of these cars and/or a head-on collision test with a full size SUV. I'm also wondering if this is going to affect our insurance rates.

It definitely doesn't help insurance rates, as I believe IIHS primarily does this crash testing to assess insurance premium adjustments.

 

[Zooomer]

No, they didn't modify the construction of the vehicle, it appears they modified the seat belt in some way.

You do realize these automotive companies specifically design their vehicles for these testing regiments? There are many real world crash scenarios that aren't represented. There is plenty of real world crash data to support the safeness of the vehicle. If this one very specific instance bothers you that much, then, fine, nothing I say is going to alleviate that concern. I certainly hope you find Tesla's remedy acceptable.

This.

1. The headlights in my S are amazing. Best I've ever used.
2. You cannot just compare numbers or specific tests because they don't take things into account. If we're talking roof crush ratio, it would lead you to believe a smart car is safer than an S because it has a higher ratio only weighing 1000 lbs (made up example). However, in the real world when an SUV drives over you, you're going to die. This isn't represented.
-Following that, SOME cars have a slightly higher roof crush rating in sheer lbs. This is true, but what isn't stated is that those vehicle on ice hitting dry pavement are going to flip over onto the roof. The S isn't because center of gravity is low. This isn't factored in.
3. How about risk of dying in an inferno? Per Google, there are over 100 people injured or killed per year in car fires. The S has far less risk, not represented in these ratings.

I could go on but point is, the testing doesn't reflect 'vehicle safety' as a whole and I feel confident I'm riding in one of the safest vehicles on the planet. Not only when in an accident but being more likely to avoid one.

 

[AudubonB]

Don't bet too heavily (har) on weight being a helping hand.

In the USA, 55% of all fatalities are single vehicle crashes. Weight works against you when a car loses control, or hits an immovable object.

I'm absolutely delighted to learn I'm better off when I hit a tree in a Smart Car than in a Model X.