Tesla Model 3 in Australia

[Candleflame]

In SA, and I’m sure other states are similar, twice as many people die on country roads compared to city roads. That suggests the car isnt the problem. Indeed good luck surviving a head-on crash at 110kmh (equivalent to hitting a wall at 220kmh) in your tesla. They have not been crash tested at that speed.
The issue with crashes at highway speed is that one day cars may be strong enough, but the body cannot handle the G forces involved. It pulvorises your organs.
Hence redesigning roads to be safer is always going to be safer than selling everyone a tesla.

thats not how newtons laws of motion work. a 110kmh head on crash is equivalent to hitting a wall at 110 kmh.

 

[Shock-On-T]

thats not how newtons laws of motion work. a 110kmh head on crash is equivalent to hitting a wall at 110 kmh.

Not quite.
In both cases the deceleration will be equally abrupt, but in the case of a head on collision the kinetic energy of both vehicles is released, so there is twice as much energy to dissipate. More heat, more inelastic transformation.

 

[SR22pilot]

Not quite.
In both cases the deceleration will be equally abrupt, but in the case of a head on collision the kinetic energy of both vehicles is released, so there is twice as much energy to dissipate. More heat, more inelastic transformation.

The issue is how the energy is released. That involves the crumple zones of the cars involved.

 

[Candleflame]

Not quite.
In both cases the deceleration will be equally abrupt, but in the case of a head on collision the kinetic energy of both vehicles is released, so there is twice as much energy to dissipate. More heat, more inelastic transformation.

well yes of course. if you are 3 ton tesla vs a 800kg polo the polo will take 1.9 tons of impact force rather than 800kg (if he were to crash with another polo). But it is hardly crashing into a brickwall at 220kmh.

 

[paulp]

well yes of course. if you are 3 ton tesla vs a 800kg polo the polo will take 1.9 tons of impact force rather than 800kg (if he were to crash with another polo). But it is hardly crashing into a brickwall at 220kmh.

All I can say is.....tell the guy in the US who crashed his tesla into a stationary road safety barrier.....oh wait you can’t, he was killed on impact...in the safest suv ever made.

 

[PJF000]

All I can say is.....tell the guy in the US who crashed his tesla into a stationary road safety barrier.....oh wait you can’t, he was killed on impact...in the safest suv ever made.

Actually, I believe it was the ensuing fire from the burst battery pack that killed him.
In any case, there is probably not enough crashes, deaths, miles driven etc, to categorically and scientifically know how much safer is or isn't from other makes. It does however get the highest ratings, and commonsense, anecdotal evidence, personal experience and probabilities are enough for me to believe that they are somewhat safer than most.
This string of the thread came about by a proposed $2b cash splash on blackspots v a suggestion to get more people buying a safer and better vehicle for the same money. How many people get hit square head on by Mack trucks and how many fall asleep, get distracted or just have an unfortunate accident that may be saved from death or serious injury if their car was just a bit safer for the same category and priced vehicle that wasn't.

 

[raynewman]

Actually, I believe it was the ensuing fire from the burst battery pack that killed him.
In any case, there is probably not enough crashes, deaths, miles driven etc, to categorically and scientifically know how much safer is or isn't from other makes. It does however get the highest ratings, and commonsense, anecdotal evidence, personal experience and probabilities are enough for me to believe that they are somewhat safer than most.
This string of the thread came about by a proposed $2b cash splash on blackspots v a suggestion to get more people buying a safer and better vehicle for the same money. How many people get hit square head on by Mack trucks and how many fall asleep, get distracted or just have an unfortunate accident that may be saved from death or serious injury if their car was just a bit safer for the same category and priced vehicle that wasn't.

Some form of auto-pilot in the Mack trucks (and the cars) would be the most help.

 

[paulp]

Actually, I believe it was the ensuing fire from the burst battery pack that killed him.
In any case, there is probably not enough crashes, deaths, miles driven etc, to categorically and scientifically know how much safer is or isn't from other makes. It does however get the highest ratings, and commonsense, anecdotal evidence, personal experience and probabilities are enough for me to believe that they are somewhat safer than most.
This string of the thread came about by a proposed $2b cash splash on blackspots v a suggestion to get more people buying a safer and better vehicle for the same money. How many people get hit square head on by Mack trucks and how many fall asleep, get distracted or just have an unfortunate accident that may be saved from death or serious injury if their car was just a bit safer for the same category and priced vehicle that wasn't.

I agree that buying the safest car you can afford is always going to be better. I dont do so much country driving now, but there was a time for several years that I would do an early morning 1 hour country drive at least once or twice a week. I had an awd audi with traction control back then, and the number of times I had to rely on that feature to get off the road due to cars and trucks on the wrong side was just astounding. It was certainly a vivid lesson on the importance of a good, solid, safe, advanced car on country roads.

 

[paulp]

Some form of auto-pilot in the Mack trucks (and the cars) would be the most help.

Yes absolutely, and Elon Musk has identified that. I read yesterday that he reckons it will be ready by the end of the year......at which point it will be up to governments to accept it in their own good time.

 

[Shock-On-T]

well yes of course. if you are 3 ton tesla vs a 800kg polo the polo will take 1.9 tons of impact force rather than 800kg (if he were to crash with another polo). But it is hardly crashing into a brickwall at 220kmh.

Not saying you should add the velocities to get 220, just that a head-on collision has more kinetic energy to dissapate than a wall collision, even though the deceleration is the same.
The damage comes from both the deceleration (same in both scenarios), plus the deformation caused by dissapating kinetic energy (higher in a head-on than a "wall-on").
Additionally, kinetic energy increases at the squary of the velocity, which has the counter-intuitive result that the total kinetic energy of two cars travelling at 100kph is less than the kinetic energy of one car travelling at 200kph.
(2 x 100 x 100 = 20000) < (1 x 200 x 200 = 40000).
As for deceleration, this is the final value of the momentum equation, which is linear for velocity and linear for mass.
So in a head-on you can reduce your decelation by being heavier, but also by being faster.
And that's where you see the difference between deceleration damage due to loss of momentum and kinetic energy damage, because if you are doing 20,000kph and you hit the polo at 100kph you will both be destroyed, even though you will barely deceleration, because the kinetic energy of the collision will deform you and your vehicle inelastically.

 

[Shock-On-T]

The issue is how the energy is released. That involves the crumple zones of the cars involved.

Very true.
The vehicle design (crumple zones) just changes the duration over which the energy is released, not the total amount.
The total amount is locked in by the universe, and is 1/2 x mass x velocity x velocity.

 

[Vostok]

And since this thread is "Tesla Model 3 in Australia", I celebrated 3 years of waiting today! But at least there is now light at the end of the tunnel with the configurator to open up in April or May.

 

[miimura]

Actually, I believe it was the ensuing fire from the burst battery pack that killed him.
In any case, there is probably not enough crashes, deaths, miles driven etc, to categorically and scientifically know how much safer is or isn't from other makes. It does however get the highest ratings, and commonsense, anecdotal evidence, personal experience and probabilities are enough for me to believe that they are somewhat safer than most.
This string of the thread came about by a proposed $2b cash splash on blackspots v a suggestion to get more people buying a safer and better vehicle for the same money. How many people get hit square head on by Mack trucks and how many fall asleep, get distracted or just have an unfortunate accident that may be saved from death or serious injury if their car was just a bit safer for the same category and priced vehicle that wasn't.

If you're talking about the Model X that crashed into the barrier in the gore point in Mountain View, California, no the driver was removed from the vehicle before the battery started to catch fire. He died in the hospital due to internal injuries. He would have survived if the highway department had restored the deformable barrier after an earlier collision with the same barrier two weeks earlier.

 

[Stratman]

And since this thread is "Tesla Model 3 in Australia", I celebrated 3 years of waiting today! But at least there is now light at the end of the tunnel with the configurator to open up in April or May.

Its April ! Congrats.. sounds like you are at the front of the queue next to existing owners!

 

[Priit]

I was really hoping they would have the mid-range as an option for Australia too, but so far it is looking a lot like that model has been pulled from line-up. If that is not available I would love to get the long range model, but suspect the price might be out of my reach forcing me to go with SR+ instead. Either way cannot wait to get one . Who knows the finance might go through allowing me to get LR model

 

[Shock-On-T]

I was really hoping they would have the mid-range as an option for Australia too, but so far it is looking a lot like that model has been pulled from line-up. If that is not available I would love to get the long range model, but suspect the price might be out of my reach forcing me to go with SR+ instead. Either way cannot wait to get one . Who knows the finance might go through allowing me to get LR model

So hard to predict too. They might bring it back, or bring out something else.
But I noticed Europe didn't get SR or MR at all (not yet anyway). Australia probably similar, start with LR and Perf.
Time will tell...

 

[Tension]

Very true.
The vehicle design (crumple zones) just changes the duration over which the energy is released, not the total amount.
The total amount is locked in by the universe, and is 1/2 x mass x velocity x velocity.

I feel like you're forgetting something. There is more energy to be released from two cars, correct, but that's balanced by there being twice as many cars involved (2 rather than 1) meaning there is twice as much mass to dissipate the energy, meaning the energy dissipation per car is still the same as 1 car hitting the wall (assuming the wall does not change form).

 

[Shock-On-T]

I feel like you're forgetting something. There is more energy to be released from two cars, correct, but that's balanced by there being twice as many cars involved (2 rather than 1) meaning there is twice as much mass to dissipate the energy, meaning the energy dissipation per car is still the same as 1 car hitting the wall (assuming the wall does not change form).

The total energy released is the same, but if there are twice as many cars then there are twice as many crumple zones to stretch out the energy delivery.
It's all the same in physics, but it means the energy is dumped into bending metal rather than bone. Either way, the same energy is dumped, that can't be avoided.

 

[Carl Raymond]

In SA, and I’m sure other states are similar, twice as many people die on country roads compared to city roads. That suggests the car isnt the problem. Indeed good luck surviving a head-on crash at 110kmh (equivalent to hitting a wall at 220kmh) in your tesla. They have not been crash tested at that speed.
The issue with crashes at highway speed is that one day cars may be strong enough, but the body cannot handle the G forces involved. It pulvorises your organs.
Hence redesigning roads to be safer is always going to be safer than selling everyone a tesla.

By the time we’re all driving cars with batteries below and crumple zones in front, FSD will be a thing.

 

[aegidius]

I feel like you're forgetting something. There is more energy to be released from two cars, correct, but that's balanced by there being twice as many cars involved (2 rather than 1) meaning there is twice as much mass to dissipate the energy, meaning the energy dissipation per car is still the same as 1 car hitting the wall (assuming the wall does not change form).

From the first car's point of view, the second car is just providing the wall. That's assuming the cars are the same mass and travelling the same speed.