5 ms·

The most important feature of the Teslas, in my opinion, is safety. If I had to choose between a Bolt and a Model 3 -- poor safety ratings would have been a dec

by oDot 11y ago

The most important feature of the Teslas, in my opinion, is safety. If I had to choose between a Bolt and a Model 3 -- poor safety ratings would have been a deciding factor. Also, I hope it can't be "benchmark-optimized" like in web browsers.

csours 11y ago
I think I understand what you are saying, but official crash test ratings have not been released for either vehicle yet. I don't think crash test safety can be "benchmark-optimized" per se; outside companies do the testing and the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. However, there may be vehicle incidents that would not be covered by safety or crash tests. The safety dollars go to mitigating incidents with the highest rate of fatalities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_motor_vehicle_collisions#Proportion_of_deaths_by_type_of_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_motor_vehicle_... Disclaimer: I work for GM, but not on this product. Any opinions are my own.
- 762236 11y ago
  Tesla has a history of addressing safety in a way that no other manufacturers seem to prioritize for (given that car design is over constrained and you have to compromise somewhere). I would be really surprised if the Bolt earned 5-star ratings in every category. On Tesla's Model S, they designed to achieve 5-star if the tests were applied everywhere on the car --- not just the official test points.
  - csours 11y ago
    I would agree that Tesla has a history of safety, and that is laudable. I hope you are surprised by the Bolt's safety rating when it comes out. It is really great that Tesla has prioritized safety. They do have a few things going for them that other OEMs don't: * Only two models in production, both of which are on the same architecture. (soon to be three) * No history of failure: - GM's X-frame - Really bad seatbelts: Nearly everyone until the 1980s - Chevy Corvair (Thanks Nader!) [1] - Pintos catching on fire - Audi 5000 unintended acceleration in the 1980s - Pontiac Fieros catching on fire - Ford Explorers rolling over - GM's key switch issue - Toyota's unintended acceleration When you look at all of those, you can see that at the time, either the engineers didn't care about safety (most OEMs until the 1970s), didn't prioritize safety, just missed something, or they didn't realize that a particular design had safety implications. Tesla has learned all of those lessons and that's great. Most other OEMs have also learned those lessons, and that's great too! 1. Nader has been credited with pushing for consumer safety generally and vehicle safety specifically. Disclaimer: again, all opinions are solely my own.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    Tesla also explicitly stated during the unveiling that the Model 3 will hit five stars in every category. I think that's a promise we can count on.
  - dingaling 11y ago
    > Tesla has a history of addressing safety in a way that no other manufacturers seem to prioritize for In 2005 Renault achieved the first-ever Euro NCAP five-star rating across all the models in its range. Even the smallest hatchback Clio.
- cherry_su 11y ago
  Depends -- If a model has a bunch of body styles and only the most popular is tested, then the manufacturer can skimp on the designs or constructions of the versions that don't get tested. Ford did this with the 2015 Ford F-150: http://blog.caranddriver.com/iihs-2015-ford-f-150-crash-tests-reveal-disparate-results-between-crew-cab-and-extended-cab/ http://blog.caranddriver.com/iihs-2015-ford-f-150-crash-test... """[…] the SuperCrew’s body cage remained “largely intact” with a “low risk of injuries,” the group said. The smaller F-150 SuperCab pickup (pictured at top) scored “marginal” due to “significant intrusion” of the passenger cabin, as the dashboard and steering wheel came “dangerously close” to the dummy’s chest. Since the A-pillars buckled and other body components “seriously compromised the driver’s survival space,” the IIHS rated this F-150’s structure as “poor,” which is below “marginal” and the group’s worst rating."""
- MagnumOpus 11y ago
  >the proof is in the pudding, so to speak Nitpick: Proofs are not in the pudding, unless you placed them there. The manner of speaking is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". That way it actually makes some sense, too.
sirkneeland 11y ago
Or like diesel VWs...

by oDot 11y ago

csours 11y ago

I think I understand what you are saying, but official crash test ratings have not been released for either vehicle yet. I don't think crash test safety can be "benchmark-optimized" per se; outside companies do the testing and the proof is in the pudding, so to speak. However, there may be vehicle incidents that would not be covered by safety or crash tests. The safety dollars go to mitigating incidents with the highest rate of fatalities. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_motor_vehicle_collisions#Proportion_of_deaths_by_type_of_impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_motor_vehicle_... Disclaimer: I work for GM, but not on this product. Any opinions are my own.

762236 11y ago
Tesla has a history of addressing safety in a way that no other manufacturers seem to prioritize for (given that car design is over constrained and you have to compromise somewhere). I would be really surprised if the Bolt earned 5-star ratings in every category. On Tesla's Model S, they designed to achieve 5-star if the tests were applied everywhere on the car --- not just the official test points.
- csours 11y ago
  I would agree that Tesla has a history of safety, and that is laudable. I hope you are surprised by the Bolt's safety rating when it comes out. It is really great that Tesla has prioritized safety. They do have a few things going for them that other OEMs don't: * Only two models in production, both of which are on the same architecture. (soon to be three) * No history of failure: - GM's X-frame - Really bad seatbelts: Nearly everyone until the 1980s - Chevy Corvair (Thanks Nader!) [1] - Pintos catching on fire - Audi 5000 unintended acceleration in the 1980s - Pontiac Fieros catching on fire - Ford Explorers rolling over - GM's key switch issue - Toyota's unintended acceleration When you look at all of those, you can see that at the time, either the engineers didn't care about safety (most OEMs until the 1970s), didn't prioritize safety, just missed something, or they didn't realize that a particular design had safety implications. Tesla has learned all of those lessons and that's great. Most other OEMs have also learned those lessons, and that's great too! 1. Nader has been credited with pushing for consumer safety generally and vehicle safety specifically. Disclaimer: again, all opinions are solely my own.
- mikeash 11y ago
  Tesla also explicitly stated during the unveiling that the Model 3 will hit five stars in every category. I think that's a promise we can count on.
- dingaling 11y ago
  > Tesla has a history of addressing safety in a way that no other manufacturers seem to prioritize for In 2005 Renault achieved the first-ever Euro NCAP five-star rating across all the models in its range. Even the smallest hatchback Clio.
cherry_su 11y ago
Depends -- If a model has a bunch of body styles and only the most popular is tested, then the manufacturer can skimp on the designs or constructions of the versions that don't get tested. Ford did this with the 2015 Ford F-150: http://blog.caranddriver.com/iihs-2015-ford-f-150-crash-tests-reveal-disparate-results-between-crew-cab-and-extended-cab/ http://blog.caranddriver.com/iihs-2015-ford-f-150-crash-test... """[…] the SuperCrew’s body cage remained “largely intact” with a “low risk of injuries,” the group said. The smaller F-150 SuperCab pickup (pictured at top) scored “marginal” due to “significant intrusion” of the passenger cabin, as the dashboard and steering wheel came “dangerously close” to the dummy’s chest. Since the A-pillars buckled and other body components “seriously compromised the driver’s survival space,” the IIHS rated this F-150’s structure as “poor,” which is below “marginal” and the group’s worst rating."""
MagnumOpus 11y ago
>the proof is in the pudding, so to speak Nitpick: Proofs are not in the pudding, unless you placed them there. The manner of speaking is "the proof of the pudding is in the eating". That way it actually makes some sense, too.

sirkneeland 11y ago

Or like diesel VWs...