Tesla needs to improve rear seat safety especially for children

[chickensevil]

While I can't speak for the EU vs US version differences, when Elon has got up to talk about the Model S as it relates to Safety, he has come around to clarifying at least on the US side what the "star ratings" mean and how that actually matters. What it comes out to is a probability for injury. When you look at it from that perspective specifically (which is really the only perspective that should matter when talking about getting in an accident... this avoiding accidents is nice and all that, but my opinion is that they should separate out the two into independent ratings of ability to minimize damage in an accident and ability to avoid an accident altogether) the Model S stands out overall as one of the least likely to sustain an injury in a given accident.

Like this:

and driver chest got red in side pole test

I cannot believe that this would be worse than anyone else on the market. If Tesla is indeed red in the chest area than everyone else must be red as well... that or show me the physical car that took that test so I can compare the two images, because I have never seen a physical car take that test quite as well as the Model S does. The reason for this is the combination of strength in the aluminum door and the fact that the bottom frame of the car is able to transfer the force of the impact through the battery pack into the rest of the car thereby minimizing the amount of force directly applied to the door area. This results in minimal intrusion into the driver compartment. I think they saw something like a 15-20% loss of space and most other cars end up in the 80% loss of space range... meaning you have a pole and door right on your lap and into your side.

So something seems amiss in their test that other cars score better in this area when this is one area that the Model S specifically should be excelling in. Overall the safety results of the EU test were decent enough I'm sure there are things to improve upon as with everything, but safety has always been one of their chief design concerns. Specifically because, if nothing else, Elon drives this car, his family drives this car (he has 5 boys), his friends drive this car, and he has stated that he could never live with himself if something bad were to happen to his family or friends due to something they could have done better as far as safety in this car.

At least in the US tests (And I do understand that there are slightly different methods used between the two testing bodies) no other car has scored a lower probability for injury.

 

[veryannoyingname]

While I can't speak for the EU vs US version differences, when Elon has got up to talk about the Model S as it relates to Safety, he has come around to clarifying at least on the US side what the "star ratings" mean and how that actually matters. What it comes out to is a probability for injury. When you look at it from that perspective specifically (which is really the only perspective that should matter when talking about getting in an accident... this avoiding accidents is nice and all that, but my opinion is that they should separate out the two into independent ratings of ability to minimize damage in an accident and ability to avoid an accident altogether) the Model S stands out overall as one of the least likely to sustain an injury in a given accident.

Like this:

I cannot believe that this would be worse than anyone else on the market. If Tesla is indeed red in the chest area than everyone else must be red as well... that or show me the physical car that took that test so I can compare the two images, because I have never seen a physical car take that test quite as well as the Model S does. The reason for this is the combination of strength in the aluminum door and the fact that the bottom frame of the car is able to transfer the force of the impact through the battery pack into the rest of the car thereby minimizing the amount of force directly applied to the door area. This results in minimal intrusion into the driver compartment. I think they saw something like a 15-20% loss of space and most other cars end up in the 80% loss of space range... meaning you have a pole and door right on your lap and into your side.

So something seems amiss in their test that other cars score better in this area when this is one area that the Model S specifically should be excelling in. Overall the safety results of the EU test were decent enough I'm sure there are things to improve upon as with everything, but safety has always been one of their chief design concerns. Specifically because, if nothing else, Elon drives this car, his family drives this car (he has 5 boys), his friends drive this car, and he has stated that he could never live with himself if something bad were to happen to his family or friends due to something they could have done better as far as safety in this car.

At least in the US tests (And I do understand that there are slightly different methods used between the two testing bodies) no other car has scored a lower probability for injury.

I fully agree that injury to occupants should have a higher rating rather than vehicle damage in any safety assessment. Degree of vehicle intrusion is far less important than actual amount of injury to occupants in vehicle. If you note the model X and model S reveals and that showed the amount of vehicle intrusion in side accident but what they didn't show is the actual injury measurements to crash test dummies which is the more important value that should be advertised.

See screenshot and link for model S intrusion and injury to crash test dummy scores for model S vs some others.

See more discussion on these crash test issues in general posted elsewhere. Cheers
Why does XC90 score worse than my XC60 in IIHS side test? - Page 3

 

[chickensevil]

I assume these photos are the "pole test" photos.

(this car shows orange in the chest)

(This one shows yellow)

(This one also yellow)

(The Tesla Pole Test which got red)

Now, looking at those pictures, most of them lost so much space into the compartment that they destroyed the roof line and even intruded enough to break the front windshield. The overhead shot of the Tesla on the other hand is *VERY* telling. It didn't break either the front windshield, nor did it break the glass. It barely even looks dented by the pole at all.

The 2013 NHTSA film looks like it was far more devastating on the Model S:

But the end result is still that there was very minimal intrusion into the compartment. All of this is largely thanks to energy transfer into the rest of the car as the pole hits the strengthened battery pack and distributes the force of impact (which is the most important thing in minimizing energy is transferring that force into something safe)

So how Tesla scored so low on the pole test for the EU tests has me totally baffled...

 

[BertL]

I read an article today that said the company is recalling 90,000 model Ss due to seatbelt problems. Tesla keeps having issues... first its guidance, now its recalls. analysts seem bullish though, guess there’s still reason to be optimistic https://www.tipranks.com/stocks/tsla

You may want to take a peek at some of the other threads here on this subject, e.g. Tesla recalls entire Model S fleet for seat belts.

IMHO, and I'm not a Tesla zealot, although I happily own a MS -- the bigger issue is the press provides headlines that catch attention, but people then sometimes fail to take a moment to understand the next 2-3 important facts before drawing a conclusion. In this case, there was one seatbelt problem found (no harm to anyone) in Europe out of 90,000 vehicles on the road globally; Tesla elected to proactively do their OWN recall to inspect all seatbelts to ensure there are no other failures, of which none have yet been noted at least in the main thread here on TMC. Tesla emailed and put this information up on owner's My Tesla webpage, and had already put additional personnel at most Service Centers to handle the inspections without impacting normal service scheduling. I think I'm mostly OK in saying most owners feel it's a really good thing Tesla has done, proving they are if anything, overly cautious compared to many mfgrs when it comes to vehicle safety. That's at least how I would like them to be. So we don't get too far off-track and back to the subject at hand, I'll let each reader think to themselves of several examples from nearly all other auto mfgrs where there have been major injuries before something was done, or where it's taken years for the problem to be acknowledged and then resolved, or some gov't agency had to engage and order a mandated recall because the mfgr didn't do it on their own.​

 

[chickensevil]

Huh, well thanks for sharing the crash dummy information, that clearly shows why they rated it as such in their pictures... I am just confused why the dummy responded so poorly... Because the force should have been distributed away from the occupant.

 

[veryannoyingname]

Huh, well thanks for sharing the crash dummy information, that clearly shows why they rated it as such in their pictures... I am just confused why the dummy responded so poorly... Because the force should have been distributed away from the occupant.

The impact force has to go to the car and occupants. If the car gets less of the force then you know where the force really goes to ... The occupant!
Tesla can't have their cake and eat it too. For frontal crash they claim more crumple zone in Frunk makes it safer which I agree. But they say the reverse for side pole test where they claim less intrusion means less injury to occupant which I don't agree with. The real test is the actual force impacted on to crash test dummy as in measured via sensors on crash test dummy which don't look great for Tesla as per the screen shot and link I posted in my previous reply here.

I attend to trauma victims in A&E and theatres in my field of work and internal force injuries can be great even if external injuries don't look that much. So impact force transmitted to dummies in crash testing should be the most important parameter. No point having a vehicle with less intrusion if occupant is seriously injured. Best would be less impact on car and occupant but didn't necessarily go together in real life.

 

[chickensevil]

By the way this was also posted in that thread:

Why does XC90 score worse than my XC60 in IIHS side test? - Page 4

If you are still struggling on still not being able to find why Volvo's approach to OVERALL safety is unique and what separates it from the other cars, I am not sure what else I can say or show you to demonstrate that Volvos are designed to provide the best protection there is under any circumstances. That is what I call a "HOLISTIC" approach to safety and not to only show acceptable scores in NHTSA or IIHS tests...

So, what say you?

For those who don't want to read the back and forth happening in the thread, basically someone was asking why the new Volvo scored lower than the old model, especially since Volvo is well known for being committed to safety and producing the best cars. While I won't say that Tesla is better than Volvo, their ethos toward safety seems to follow this same approach as Volvo, which I wish more manufactures put as much effort into their cars. If Tesla falls short of Volvo's safety levels that is acceptable to me at this stage, but that being the mark to achieve to is exactly why I love that Tesla shows signs of being equally as committed to safe designs. Volvo has had 100 years of designing and improving upon safe car designs and here Tesla is in less than 20 years has put out two cars that at the very least have come knocking at Volvo's doors.

Not saying Tesla doesn't need to improve, and indeed I hope they do continue to do so. Hopefully the Model S 2.0 will put the current design to shame as far as safety goes.

 

[stopcrazypp]

The impact force has to go to the car and occupants. If the car gets less of the force then you know where the force really goes to ... The occupant!
Tesla can't have their cake and eat it too. For frontal crash they claim more crumple zone in Frunk makes it safer which I agree. But they say the reverse for side pole test where they claim less intrusion means less injury to occupant which I don't agree with. The real test is the actual force impacted on to crash test dummy as in measured via sensors on crash test dummy which don't look great for Tesla as per the screen shot and link I posted in my previous reply here.

I attend to trauma victims in A&E and theatres in my field of work and internal force injuries can be great even if external injuries don't look that much. So impact force transmitted to dummies in crash testing should be the most important parameter. No point having a vehicle with less intrusion if occupant is seriously injured. Best would be less impact on car and occupant but didn't necessarily go together in real life.

I don't think what applies to the front applies to the sides. In the front, you have a crumple zone before there is intrusion. On the side, it is almost non-existent (an inch or two?). Basically as you see above the deformation basically translates to intrusion directly. The side airbags are basically what absorbs it.

 

[veryannoyingname]

By the way this was also posted in that thread:

Why does XC90 score worse than my XC60 in IIHS side test? - Page 4


For those who don't want to read the back and forth happening in the thread, basically someone was asking why the new Volvo scored lower than the old model, especially since Volvo is well known for being committed to safety and producing the best cars. While I won't say that Tesla is better than Volvo, their ethos toward safety seems to follow this same approach as Volvo, which I wish more manufactures put as much effort into their cars. If Tesla falls short of Volvo's safety levels that is acceptable to me at this stage, but that being the mark to achieve to is exactly why I love that Tesla shows signs of being equally as committed to safe designs. Volvo has had 100 years of designing and improving upon safe car designs and here Tesla is in less than 20 years has put out two cars that at the very least have come knocking at Volvo's doors.

Not saying Tesla doesn't need to improve, and indeed I hope they do continue to do so. Hopefully the Model S 2.0 will put the current design to shame as far as safety goes.

Yes I agree with what you say. I hope the actual crash testing data from dummies for model X is better than the S since there is slightly more intrusion on the X compared to the SS in side pole test.

 

[chickensevil]

The impact force has to go to the car and occupants. If the car gets less of the force then you know where the force really goes to ... The occupant!
Tesla can't have their cake and eat it too. For frontal crash they claim more crumple zone in Frunk makes it safer which I agree. But they say the reverse for side pole test where they claim less intrusion means less injury to occupant which I don't agree with. The real test is the actual force impacted on to crash test dummy as in measured via sensors on crash test dummy which don't look great for Tesla as per the screen shot and link I posted in my previous reply here.

I attend to trauma victims in A&E and theatres in my field of work and internal force injuries can be great even if external injuries don't look that much. So impact force transmitted to dummies in crash testing should be the most important parameter. No point having a vehicle with less intrusion if occupant is seriously injured. Best would be less impact on car and occupant but didn't necessarily go together in real life.

In fairness the Volvo design also limits intrusion into the vehicle.

It isn't that most of these cars have a "crumple zone" on the side as to the reason for allowing it to cave in like that. The pole is essentially tearing through the side of the car because it has nothing stopping it. It isn't until it gets far enough into the compartment that it starts finding real resistance and brings it to a halt. A crumple zone is force transfer at its finest, because in addition to transferring the force of the impact across the car, it is also absorbing the force by crumpling the car.

In the case of the side impact, there is generally nothing to stop the force, or help transfer the force of the impact as the bottom/side of the car isn't very rigid, and therefore the pole just goes into the car. Sure that couple inches of frame is helping in some degree to reduce that impact, but not much... regardless of the car. There just isn't enough room to allow it. However because of the more rigid design of Tesla's with the battery pack in the bottom, it gives way to better weight and force transfer, or at least should... Maybe I am totally misunderstanding the physics of this???

 

[veryannoyingname]

In fairness the Volvo design also limits intrusion into the vehicle.

It isn't that most of these cars have a "crumple zone" on the side as to the reason for allowing it to cave in like that. The pole is essentially tearing through the side of the car because it has nothing stopping it. It isn't until it gets far enough into the compartment that it starts finding real resistance and brings it to a halt. A crumple zone is force transfer at its finest, because in addition to transferring the force of the impact across the car, it is also absorbing the force by crumpling the car.

In the case of the side impact, there is generally nothing to stop the force, or help transfer the force of the impact as the bottom/side of the car isn't very rigid, and therefore the pole just goes into the car. Sure that couple inches of frame is helping in some degree to reduce that impact, but not much... regardless of the car. There just isn't enough room to allow it. However because of the more rigid design of Tesla's with the battery pack in the bottom, it gives way to better weight and force transfer, or at least should... Maybe I am totally misunderstanding the physics of this???

Volvo dropped the ball on the new model that was discussed on the link as it's safety was less than the older model but guess those compromises were made by the design team to accommodate other features in the new model.

I am no expert in these matters. I am just a layman. Even though I treat trauma victims almost every other day my experience (work and teaching) is just in my field treating patients and not cars and safety etc. A better analogy would be "Just because I sit on and use the toilet everyday doesn't make me an expert on how to build a toilet or sort out its problems".


I just read on these topics for knowledge and passing the time and hopefully make better decisions on my next car purchase.

 

[chickensevil]

Volvo dropped the ball on the new model that was discussed on the link as it's safety was less than the older model but guess those compromises were made by the design team to accommodate other features in the new model.

I am no expert in these matters. I am just a layman. Even though I treat trauma victims almost every other day my experience (work and teaching) is just in my field treating patients and not cars and safety etc. A better analogy would be "Just because I sit on and use the toilet everyday doesn't make me an expert on how to build a toilet or sort out its problems".


I just read on these topics for knowledge and passing the time and hopefully make better decisions on my next car purchase.

I am pretty much in the same boat, I like reading about random things to gain further knowledge on subjects. Especially things I care deeply about. So I wouldn't pass as an expert either. This was why I was really grateful to be pointed to the crash dummy numbers since that does at least explain why they scored poorly in the chest area.

 

[Vitold]

It's important to keep in mind that safety ratings give results for very specific circumstances from which we can interpret the results and apply to real world scenarios.

For example, it's probably fair to say that side impact at higher speed would likely be fatal in Volvo (due to intrusion) where Tesla's occupants may survive with knee injury and internal and/or blunt force injuries.

 

[veryannoyingname]

It's important to keep in mind that safety ratings give results for very specific circumstances from which we can interpret the results and apply to real world scenarios.

For example, it's probably fair to say that side impact at higher speed would likely be fatal in Volvo (due to intrusion) where Tesla's occupants may survive with knee injury and internal and/or blunt force injuries.

I think irrespective of intrusion the fact shown by testing results is that the sensors on the crash test dummies on the Volvo had half the points of the Tesla for head injury! Lower is better. Similarly significantly lower scores for pelvic injuries. It goes without saying that almost half the points in head injury criteria will be a difference between life and death or being a vegetative state for head injuries. Broken bones heal, but with head injuries one isn't that lucky always. I should know as I long ago worked in a couple of the national tertiary trauma referral centres for neurological injuries in two different countries for a few years, but that was a while back. I would rather have broken bones than a head injury given the choice. Hence the need for curtain airbags in 3rd row as well. As far as I am aware the third row doesn't have any airbags or seat belt pretensioners or load limiters (neither does the second row seat belts) and should be the worst place to put my child in irrespective of any additional strengthening of the rear end. It is a cool option but risky option but that's just my opinion as there are no crash testing results for third row in either USA or EU testing.

However please note that all 3 cars with the data presented got 5* in crash testing as they well below the threshold for those star criteria but stars don't tell the whole story. See extract again below

"I bet Tesla didn't point out that 10 inches less intrusion didn't result in better occupant protection in that particular test.

Injury measures(threshold) Model S, Q5, XC60

Head injury criteria(1000) 449.4 253.2 242.1
Total pelvic force(5525) 3492 3454 3208
Lower spine acceleration(82) 46 54 45

Green = best
Red =worst

All three vehicles scored well below the threshold and earned 5 stars in the test."

 

[WannabeOwner]

With regard to the adult safety on the EURONCAP report ... The side pole test had red for driver which means poor rating

I don't think that is correct (or I am looking at the wrong thing?). I see Brown / Maroon which is "Weak" rather than "Poor" - the choice of colours doesn't seem very smart to me, particularly when only a small area of the "dummy" is coloured, as they look quite similar. (Either way "could be better" of course)

 

[veryannoyingname]

I don't think that is correct (or I am looking at the wrong thing?). I see Brown / Maroon which is "Weak" rather than "Poor" - the choice of colours doesn't seem very smart to me, particularly when only a small area of the "dummy" is coloured, as they look quite similar. (Either way "could be better" of course)

View attachment 101958

Thanks for pointing out it was maroon instead of red. It wasn't that obvious to me on my phone as I do most of surfing the web on my phone and wasnt that obvious to me till you pointed it out.

 

[bradhs]

Were these tests using the new Next Generation seats or the original seats?