3 ms·

This is the most confusing article I've seen from danluu. What data was used? The glaring incongruity for me arose from the details on Tesla. "For example, on

by natch 6y ago

This is the most confusing article I've seen from danluu. What data was used? The glaring incongruity for me arose from the details on Tesla. "For example, on the driver-side small overlap test, Tesla had one model with a relevant score and it scored Acceptable (below Good, but above Poor and Marginal) " Note the words "above poor." But in the bullet points danluu uses a different scale that doesn't match this prose, and slots Tesla into "poor." I'm sensing an agenda. But I'd rather keep an open mind, and look at the raw data myself. The other odd thing is that the article mentions both 2012 and 2018 data, but doesn't provide a specific link to the data that was used. What raw data was used? A clue lies in the other prose about Tesla in the article, which refers to a 2017 article about Tesla's pushing back. (The points about this being predictable as a PR move seem valid. However what's more interesting is the timeline.) 2017 is prior to 2018. Which points to the data being relied on here being the 2012 data, not the 2018 data. The problem with using very old data is that the cars have evolved significantly since 2012. I mean, 2012 was the very first production year for Model 2. We're talking almost a hand crafted (though semi robotic) assembly line back at that point. And yet the article talks about this as though the data represents Tesla in general. We are eight years along into the future now — almost a decade — with that many years of improvements and two (correction, three) new models, if you don't even count the vast updates to the Model S. This should be disclosed in a way that is glaringly clear, not glossed over or minimized. In short, I would take everything here with a grain of salt. The research question, though, seems like a very good one. I would look forward to hearing an update where the data is provided, the sources are examined, the funding for the lab tests is disclosed, and current car models are covered.

natch 6y ago
>very first production year for Model 2. Too late to edit but that should have said "Model S."
43920 6y ago
Most of this is based on the IIHS data; 2012 is the last time a new type of test was added (small overlap), so it's what's being used to make this comparison. Almost all the cars mentioned in the article have likely improved since then, but the issue isn't so much how safe specific models are, but rather what approaches the manufacturers are using to improve safety. What the test results indicate is that rather than actually designing for safety, manufacturers are designing to meet a very specific set of benchmarks; there isn't much reason to believe that has changed since then. The most obvious example of this (which the article briefly mentions) is the difference between driver-side and passenger-side performance: https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/small-overlap-gap-vehicles-with-good-driver-protection-may-leave-passengers-at-risk https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/small-overlap-gap-vehicles-...
- natch 6y ago
  >the issue isn't so much how safe specific models are, but rather what approaches the manufacturers are using to improve safety. How would anybody possibly be able to characterize Tesla’s approach to improve safety today based on looking only at a test of one car eight years ago? You said it yourself: “improve” — the word implies a measurable delta in the data. But if the data is a static single value, there is no delta to work with. And there’s no rule stating that this is the issue that a blog post must cover. It’s a blog. The author is free to choose and cover any issue they please. It’s just not a worthy issue to make claims about, if your data is so limited that you are (he is) trying to derive manufacturer behavior by looking only at a single car model year as a snapshot in time. It’s simply ridiculous to try to conclude anything from such data. And then to cover that up by presenting the results on twitter as a table that highlights the false conclusion... just dishonest imho.
  - archi42 6y ago
    Selective reading? He acknowledges Tesla to be difficult to fit, right under the "Tier Table": "[...] Tesla not really properly fitting into any category (with their category being the closest fit)". And in the "Bonus: Reputation" section, he supplies an argument/reasoning what he doesn't like about Tesla: [...]I find the Tesla thing interesting since their responses are basically the opposite of what you'd expect from a company that was serious about safety. [...], they often have a very quick response that's basically "everything is fine". I would expect an organization that's serious about safety or improvement to respond with "we're investigating", [...] For example, on the driver-side small overlap test, Tesla had one model with a relevant score and it scored Acceptable (below Good, but above Poor and Marginal) even after modifications were made to improve the score. Tesla disputed the results, saying they make "the safest cars in history" and implying that IIHS should be ignored in favor of NHSTA test scores[...] (end quote). In that context I think it's important not to skip on Tesla and mention the above. And by giving his thoughts this allows readers to make up their own opinion (and you're free to come to your own conclusion). Full disclosure: Safety was one of the main reasons to get a Volvo. However, I am not someone to hate on Tesla.

by natch 6y ago

natch 6y ago

>very first production year for Model 2. Too late to edit but that should have said "Model S."

43920 6y ago

Most of this is based on the IIHS data; 2012 is the last time a new type of test was added (small overlap), so it's what's being used to make this comparison. Almost all the cars mentioned in the article have likely improved since then, but the issue isn't so much how safe specific models are, but rather what approaches the manufacturers are using to improve safety. What the test results indicate is that rather than actually designing for safety, manufacturers are designing to meet a very specific set of benchmarks; there isn't much reason to believe that has changed since then. The most obvious example of this (which the article briefly mentions) is the difference between driver-side and passenger-side performance: https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/small-overlap-gap-vehicles-with-good-driver-protection-may-leave-passengers-at-risk https://www.iihs.org/news/detail/small-overlap-gap-vehicles-...

natch 6y ago
>the issue isn't so much how safe specific models are, but rather what approaches the manufacturers are using to improve safety. How would anybody possibly be able to characterize Tesla’s approach to improve safety today based on looking only at a test of one car eight years ago? You said it yourself: “improve” — the word implies a measurable delta in the data. But if the data is a static single value, there is no delta to work with. And there’s no rule stating that this is the issue that a blog post must cover. It’s a blog. The author is free to choose and cover any issue they please. It’s just not a worthy issue to make claims about, if your data is so limited that you are (he is) trying to derive manufacturer behavior by looking only at a single car model year as a snapshot in time. It’s simply ridiculous to try to conclude anything from such data. And then to cover that up by presenting the results on twitter as a table that highlights the false conclusion... just dishonest imho.
- archi42 6y ago
  Selective reading? He acknowledges Tesla to be difficult to fit, right under the "Tier Table": "[...] Tesla not really properly fitting into any category (with their category being the closest fit)". And in the "Bonus: Reputation" section, he supplies an argument/reasoning what he doesn't like about Tesla: [...]I find the Tesla thing interesting since their responses are basically the opposite of what you'd expect from a company that was serious about safety. [...], they often have a very quick response that's basically "everything is fine". I would expect an organization that's serious about safety or improvement to respond with "we're investigating", [...] For example, on the driver-side small overlap test, Tesla had one model with a relevant score and it scored Acceptable (below Good, but above Poor and Marginal) even after modifications were made to improve the score. Tesla disputed the results, saying they make "the safest cars in history" and implying that IIHS should be ignored in favor of NHSTA test scores[...] (end quote). In that context I think it's important not to skip on Tesla and mention the above. And by giving his thoughts this allows readers to make up their own opinion (and you're free to come to your own conclusion). Full disclosure: Safety was one of the main reasons to get a Volvo. However, I am not someone to hate on Tesla.