4 ms·
> If I had to be in a wreck, it would be in an S class. Hands down. To be honest, I'd rather be in a Tesla, since no amount of smart sensors can replace a crum
by LeonM 10y ago
> If I had to be in a wreck, it would be in an S class. Hands down.
To be honest, I'd rather be in a Tesla, since no amount of smart sensors can replace a crumple zone. The S class in particular has a big engine (usually a V8), which won't play nice during a front end collision.
- 3chelon 10y agoCrumple zones assume a nice, controlled, head-on crunch. Not so useful against getting whacked in the side by a truck. But then, probably not much is.
- toomuchtodo 10y agoTesla vehicles have the highest safety rating for resisting a side impact protrusion, one of the more difficult safety vehicle tests.
- SolarNet 10y agoAlso, they use the same materials engineering from SpaceX designed for collisions in space. One of the reason their safety rating was so high.
- JustSomeNobody 10y agoWhat does this even mean?
- dom0 10y agoSpaaaaaaceee
- toomuchtodo 10y agohttps://electrek.co/2015/05/24/spacex-transferred-novel-welding-techniques-and-equipment-to-tesla-motors/ https://electrek.co/2015/05/24/spacex-transferred-novel-weld... Friction stir welding was developed in the 90’s, but Spacex perfected its own technique to adapt the technology to large sheets of metal like the ones use for the aluminium tank of their rockets. They developed their own technique and equipment and perfected the process. Here is Musk explaining the process to Wired back in 2012: Instead of riveting the ribs and hoops, you use a special machine that softens the metal on both sides of the joint without penetrating it or melting it. Unlike traditional welding, which melts and potentially compromises some metals, this process works well with high-strength aluminum alloys. You wind up with a stiffer, lighter structure than was possible before. And your material loss is maybe 10 percent, just for trimming the edges.
- posterboy 10y agoWhich materials?
- adrianpike 10y agoA "collision in space" is generally a wildly catastrophic event.
- semi-extrinsic 10y agoI see this claim tossed around a lot, but is there really a documented significant effect on safety from not having an engine up front? I mean, with a car having that huge front, is there not so much space for crumple zones that engine or not is insignificant? Now I know the Model S claims "best in class NHTSA rating", but no comparable luxury sedan has been crash tested by either US NHTSA or Euro NCAP. That's right, neither the BMW 7-series, the Audi A8 nor the Mercedes S-class have been tested. So we just don't know. Edit: Update: I've checked various other cars, and the only one I could find where both an EV and a non-EV version have been crash tested in the same year is the 2014 Kia Soul (a small MPV) Euro NCAP tests. For that car, the diesel one did worse than the EV on driver protection, specifically of the feet, which was caused by spot welds (presumably in the torpedo wall) breaking and sharp edges protruding near the driver's feet. But for child safety, which is more focused on just acceleration and thus a better proxy for crumple zones, the cars were equal. So this seems more indicative of a design fault with the Soul than a lack of crumple zones.
- arethuza 10y agoEuro NCAP have tested a E class Mercedess, which isn't that much smaller than an S class and it gets a higher rating than a Tesla Model S. http://www.euroncap.com/en/results/mercedes-benz/e-class/25343 http://www.euroncap.com/en/results/mercedes-benz/e-class/253...