Tangentially related but the comments are the best part IMO:
> Anton Korn 2 days ago
> I believe that there should be some sort of a software based limit on the maximum acceleration for new or unexperienced drivers.
> No 18 year old should be given the option to drive a supercar. it is just too dangerous.
>> Kerry Manning > Anton Korn 2 days ago
>> I believe that the software has been around for quite a while. It is an advanced neural network commonly referred to as "a parent". :)
>>> Going Knightly > Kerry Manning a day ago
>>> Said software, unfortunately, only controls the vehicle as long as the drivers are within observational range. Once the vehicle leaves said range, the software is defunct and is running on the backup operating system "Wishful Thinking 2.0".
>>>> Kerry Manning > Going Knightly a day ago
>>>> Actually parenting is more about teaching your kids to do the responsible thing when nobody is watching. Without that it's not "parenting" it's "babysitting"
> Actually parenting is more about teaching your kids to do the responsible thing when nobody is watching. Without that it's not "parenting" it's "babysitting"
That strikes me as a bad idea. There are scenarios where you need to accelerate your car as quickly as possible to move out of the way of danger or avoid an accident.
It's like Kerry Manning is deliberately ignoring that 18-year-old brains aren't "finished" with respect to judgment and perceiving consequences. Manning's argument is blatantly circular, simply assuming that Korn is mistaken that there is an issue with late adolescent brains in order to assert that 'programming' late adolescent brains with parenting is the answer.
For "the best part," that was really disappointing.
(1) "It takes a lot of speed to flip a 5,000 lbs Model S with a low center of gravity."
No it does not. Once a car is off road, on non-level ground or as in this case flying, it can roll at any speed. Push a Ferrari off a cliff and it might roll, flip and do somersaults no matter its centre of gravity.
(2) That car shows a very bad sign: impacts on both front an rear. That means multiple impacts separated by some period of time. The problem with airbags is that they can only deploy once. Same too for crumple zones. What saved these kids was most likely the seatbelts, the only safety feature that remains functional after the initial impact. This is why I am against the new trend of shock-absorbing seatbelts with stitched expansion zones, what rock climbers might call screamers. They don't work twice.
Forget the fancy safety features. The humble belt is more important than all of them put together. If you are going to roll a car, A good seat and a 5-point restraint is better than a hundred airbags.
While seat belts work, I think what saved these kids lives were the crumple zones. Those do work twice. If the car crumples in areas that don't impact the riders that's a good thing. Nobody would have survived such a crash in a classic Chevy.
The front of that car is obliterated, but notice the damage ends where the cabin begins. New autos have been receiving upgraded crumple zones for decades because they work. And it looks like Tesla hasn't avoided the issue.
Crumple zones remove energy making the rest of the accident less dangerous. Air bags operate on a similar principle 1 second post accident most of the speed is gone even if the car is still in motion. In other words survive the 80MPH crash and the secondary 40MPH crash is vastly less dangerous.
PS: Sure, there are a tiny fraction of edge cases such as falling off a cliff where it's a longer term problem, but it's reasonable to ignore them.
> Forget the fancy safety features. The humble belt is more important than all of them put together.
Totally agree with the second sentence, but disagree with the first. It's not like these features are just thrown in for fun; there is research and testing behind them, and they do save lives.
It's like that oft-misquoted statistic that you lose 50% of your body heat through your head. In reality that's only true if you cover the rest of your body with clothes, but leave your head bare. Obviously wearing clothes is going to keep you warmer than wearing a hat. But, if it's cold out, it does make sense to put a hat on too.
At least shock-absorbing seatbelts can absorb the first (and probably stronger) shock and act as a normal seatbelt after that. So I don't understand what is the point to be against that.
Wouldn't the shock-absorbers still at least retain someone after being used once? I gathered that regular seatbelts will have to be replaced after an accident anyway, they too stretch a little in an accident without retaining their stretchiness.
To clarify this: flip implies end over end rotation where as roll implies side over side rotation. Therefore, it takes considerable more force to flip a car than it does to roll it.
Not to be taken as a knock on Tesla, but from snowboarding I've learned the pain is not in the distance you fly, but the sudden stop at the end. Tumbling across an empty field is about the best case scenario. An unfortunately placed tree would be fatal at half that speed.
Yes, flying into a soft, freshly ploughed field is probably the best case scenario. Put a tree, rock, concrete or other car on the way and no crumple zone will save you at such speed.
Not quite on topic, but this headline is a good example of false precision in converted units. Did they precisely measure it to the foot? Of course they didn't. The article makes it clear it's 25 metres, which is probably an estimate within 5-10 metres. 80 feet would have been a more helpful conversion.
One of the best-known numbers in biology came about due to a similar confusion over significant figures:
> The first systematic measurements of human body temperature were performed by the German physician Carl Wunderlich. In 1861 he measured the temperatures of one million healthy individuals (a sample size that seems too large to be believed). The average value was reported as 37 degrees celsius. When converted this value becomes 98.6 degreed fahrenheit. So what's the problem? Wunderlich's value has only two significant figures while the converted value has three. The last digit (the "point six" at the end) should be regarded with great suspicion. Wunderlich's converted value should really be stated as "ninety eight point something" if one is being honest.
Actually, if one is being honest and respecting the usual rules, it should be stated as 99°F; that is, rounded to two significant figures.
(And, of course, we're not that simple: Core body temperature rises and falls naturally due to a number of factors even when we're completely healthy, so any single number as "the" healthy body temperature is, strictly, incorrect.)
When Mount Everest was first measured, it came in at 29,000 feet. But they released the figure of 29,002 feet, to prevent people thinking that it was just an estimate.
I suppose it doesn't matter much in practice because few things have the density of an engine block, but I wonder if the Tesla is crash tested with luggage in the frunk, or always with it empty.
People are going to be putting stuff into the frunk, even stuff that may be really solid and pointy and likely to breach into the cabin in the event of a crash.
Is it especially armored to deal with those situations? Or should Tesla owners generally keep it empty if they're concerned with safety?
> People are going to be putting stuff into the frunk, even stuff that may be really solid and pointy and likely to breach into the cabin in the event of a crash.
Others may have different practices, but for my wife and I we put very little there. The trunk is quite spacious. We keep a small emergency kit and an autosock[0] in the frunk but otherwise it's generally empty. On the rare occasions when we've used it on road trips the geometry has always made it most convenient to fill the frunk with winter coats and other soft goods that pack well into arbitrarily shaped spaces.
I'm interested to know the answer to this question. Is it safe to store things in the frunk? I actually keep quite a bit of stuff in my frunk (extra motorcycle helmets since I don't have much space in my condo and I have a shared condo garage space in SF).
Having been in a couple of rough accidents in my life, I thought it was pretty stunning that the frame of the passenger compartment was durable enough that the occupants were simply able to open the doors to get out.
From what I've been witness to, often the frame and doors bend enough in a big wreck to make it difficult to exit the vehicle.
The photos showing the front two doors open with all of the glass intact are quite impressive.
Was hit head on in my Subaru Impreza while turning left. I was going 15 Mph, the guy that hit me is estimated to have been driving at around 55 - 65 Mph, a Nissan Titan pickup truck, which already had about 2000 lbs on my car, on top of the stuff in the truck bed. I was shot back 40 ft from where the impact happened, here are the pictures of the aftermath:
The entire passenger compartment is completely intact. All doors still opened, front-end was completely destroyed, everything worked as it needed to. The engine dropped, the transmission shot underneath the car, drivetrain collapsed, front crumpled, dash shifted up and out of the way, airbags deployed, seatbelt caught me. But everything from the A frame to the C frame was completely intact. Doors opened without issues, and if you looked from the back you'd almost say it was a minor accident.
I walked away from the accident, much to the surprise of first responders that arrived on the scene and saw the carnage of my cars front-end.
I went back and bought another one, just a model year newer as soon as insurance sorted everything out. Modern cars are cages designed to protect their occupants, and I am very happy that is the case!
I find it more amazing the side windows are still intact, and the roof is also amazingly clean for a vehicle that is said to have rolled over "at least once" in a field.
A notoriously heavy and bottom-heavy vehicle at that. I would not want to be caught upside down in one of those, knowing that there is a tonne or so of batteries trying to crush me.
Is it here because of that Tesla hipe? Tens of cars per year probably crumple just like this Model S, but there are (rightfully) no articles on HN or other IT web sites about that.
Though of course we can't run an exact experiment, the premise is that the occupants would have seen much worse injuries had it been an average car without the saftey ratings of the Model S.
It's with some irony that the ads I see on that page are for Vauxhall.
I can't zoom in because I'm on a mobile but the final picture looks like it has the vehicle off in the distance. If so, I can't believe how far off the road it is - it must have really been moving at the time. Does it have telemetry data they can use post accident to figure out speeds and things?
> Does it have telemetry data they can use post accident to figure out speeds and things?
I would be surprised if not.
The problem is that unlike years ago, the cops can now use the data of your own car to screw you over for speeding, improper turns, running red lights... and insurances already offer heavy discounts to those who let themselves be data mined for every meter they drive.
It looks like it flipped end over end with the front taking most of the impact, then the rear being crushed on the flip. The cabin must be extremely solid since the windows are still intact.
More interesting would be a crash against a tree or a concrete pillar - then one could argue if the crumble zone of a Tesla S is better compared to a traditional superior class Volvo or Mercedes with a front motor. Ignoring the videos of certificated crash test, the Tesla S doesn't look that special: https://www.youtube.com/results?q=tesla%20crash and even in certificated tests it isn't in the top range: http://www.euroncap.com
> More interesting would be a crash against a tree or a concrete pillar - then one could argue if the crumble zone of a Tesla S is better compared to a traditional superior class Volvo or Mercedes with a front motor.
It doesn't really mean anything, but as someone who has been in a bad crash into a concrete barrier in a Volvo (all four doors able to open and everyone walked away); comparing how that front-end looked to the Tesla, I got the feeling the Tesla would do well.
> the Tesla S doesn't look that special
As someone who always drove Volvos when I owned a car, and knowing---as some in this thread have pointed out---that some cars don't fair as well in accidents, to me this article didn't point out that the Tesla S is "special" but I was glad to see it is in the class of cars where you can crunch the front end and have an intact cabin. Makes me feel better about my feeling that if I ever buy a car again it might be a Tesla not a Volvo.
First thing you should do with an Old-timer like this is replacing the original steering rack with a collapsible one, because like you said, it would perforate your head or torso on a front crash.
Crumple zones are all good, but why would you put that kind of power in the hands of an inexperienced and risk-happy 18-year-old driver? Looks like this was a P model (red calipers) which also means it has Ludicrous mode.
Perhaps Tesla could offer some innovation in the form of a de-tuned mode that triggers in the absence of a certain set of keys or pin entry.
My 1998 Escort Zx2 had a gap between the bumper and the engine of about a foot that came in handy during a read ending. I think crumble zones of empty plastic are a great idea, and wish they'd install more of those on cars. It dissipates energy and potentially saves the car from what would otherwise be a car-destroying accident.
My parents survived a head-on collision in a 1965 Corvair vs. an out-of-control Camaro, with minor injuries, thanks to the trunk being in front. The trunk was just about obliterated, but the passenger compartment was not compromised. Had they been in a Chevy Vega, Ford Pinto, or other '60s/'70s-era small car, they would have likely been maimed or killed.
As far as I'm concerned, the second-generation Corvair was considerably safer than typical small cars of the era; the trunk was large, the gas tank was behind the front axle, and the first-generation Corvair's swing axle rear suspension was superseded by a fully-independent design.
I'd feel safer even in a first-generation Corvair than in a classic VW Beetle. F*ck Nader.
Crumple zones even in much crappier cars are a blessing. My brother was once not given the right of way while he was driving a VW Polo (OK, Skoda Fabia, same car). The front of the car after looked like that Tesla but he could kick the door open (it was a little stuck) and get out. It's literally life and death. If Tesla is even better, I hope the next time a family member gets in an accident it'll be in a Tesla. That sentence probably sells cars.
Anybody else notice that 82 feet ~= 25 meters, an approximate figure guessed by the original reporters who use the metric system? We simply translated the exact conversion of an approximate number into standard.
[+] [-] reitanqild|10 years ago|reply
> Anton Korn 2 days ago
> I believe that there should be some sort of a software based limit on the maximum acceleration for new or unexperienced drivers.
> No 18 year old should be given the option to drive a supercar. it is just too dangerous.
>> Kerry Manning > Anton Korn 2 days ago
>> I believe that the software has been around for quite a while. It is an advanced neural network commonly referred to as "a parent". :)
>>> Going Knightly > Kerry Manning a day ago
>>> Said software, unfortunately, only controls the vehicle as long as the drivers are within observational range. Once the vehicle leaves said range, the software is defunct and is running on the backup operating system "Wishful Thinking 2.0".
>>>> Kerry Manning > Going Knightly a day ago
>>>> Actually parenting is more about teaching your kids to do the responsible thing when nobody is watching. Without that it's not "parenting" it's "babysitting"
[+] [-] chillacy|10 years ago|reply
Supervised learning with holdout data
[+] [-] jrcii|10 years ago|reply
That strikes me as a bad idea. There are scenarios where you need to accelerate your car as quickly as possible to move out of the way of danger or avoid an accident.
[+] [-] grecy|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] theothermkn|10 years ago|reply
For "the best part," that was really disappointing.
[+] [-] sandworm101|10 years ago|reply
No it does not. Once a car is off road, on non-level ground or as in this case flying, it can roll at any speed. Push a Ferrari off a cliff and it might roll, flip and do somersaults no matter its centre of gravity.
(2) That car shows a very bad sign: impacts on both front an rear. That means multiple impacts separated by some period of time. The problem with airbags is that they can only deploy once. Same too for crumple zones. What saved these kids was most likely the seatbelts, the only safety feature that remains functional after the initial impact. This is why I am against the new trend of shock-absorbing seatbelts with stitched expansion zones, what rock climbers might call screamers. They don't work twice.
Forget the fancy safety features. The humble belt is more important than all of them put together. If you are going to roll a car, A good seat and a 5-point restraint is better than a hundred airbags.
[+] [-] Kequc|10 years ago|reply
The front of that car is obliterated, but notice the damage ends where the cabin begins. New autos have been receiving upgraded crumple zones for decades because they work. And it looks like Tesla hasn't avoided the issue.
[+] [-] Retric|10 years ago|reply
PS: Sure, there are a tiny fraction of edge cases such as falling off a cliff where it's a longer term problem, but it's reasonable to ignore them.
[+] [-] tempestn|10 years ago|reply
Totally agree with the second sentence, but disagree with the first. It's not like these features are just thrown in for fun; there is research and testing behind them, and they do save lives.
It's like that oft-misquoted statistic that you lose 50% of your body heat through your head. In reality that's only true if you cover the rest of your body with clothes, but leave your head bare. Obviously wearing clothes is going to keep you warmer than wearing a hat. But, if it's cold out, it does make sense to put a hat on too.
[+] [-] y04nn|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cthulhu_|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Evolved|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Colin_M|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Frenchgeek|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KhalilK|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] krschultz|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] nihonde|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Rapzid|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dsfyu404ed|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kbart|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ascorbic|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] cbd1984|10 years ago|reply
One of the best-known numbers in biology came about due to a similar confusion over significant figures:
> The first systematic measurements of human body temperature were performed by the German physician Carl Wunderlich. In 1861 he measured the temperatures of one million healthy individuals (a sample size that seems too large to be believed). The average value was reported as 37 degrees celsius. When converted this value becomes 98.6 degreed fahrenheit. So what's the problem? Wunderlich's value has only two significant figures while the converted value has three. The last digit (the "point six" at the end) should be regarded with great suspicion. Wunderlich's converted value should really be stated as "ninety eight point something" if one is being honest.
Actually, if one is being honest and respecting the usual rules, it should be stated as 99°F; that is, rounded to two significant figures.
(And, of course, we're not that simple: Core body temperature rises and falls naturally due to a number of factors even when we're completely healthy, so any single number as "the" healthy body temperature is, strictly, incorrect.)
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/LenaWong.shtml
[+] [-] rmc|10 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Everest#Discovery
[+] [-] avar|10 years ago|reply
People are going to be putting stuff into the frunk, even stuff that may be really solid and pointy and likely to breach into the cabin in the event of a crash.
Is it especially armored to deal with those situations? Or should Tesla owners generally keep it empty if they're concerned with safety?
[+] [-] jsolson|10 years ago|reply
Others may have different practices, but for my wife and I we put very little there. The trunk is quite spacious. We keep a small emergency kit and an autosock[0] in the frunk but otherwise it's generally empty. On the rare occasions when we've used it on road trips the geometry has always made it most convenient to fill the frunk with winter coats and other soft goods that pack well into arbitrarily shaped spaces.
[0]: http://autosock.us/
[+] [-] jasonjei|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] samch|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] X-Istence|10 years ago|reply
http://imgur.com/a/nIMOP
The entire passenger compartment is completely intact. All doors still opened, front-end was completely destroyed, everything worked as it needed to. The engine dropped, the transmission shot underneath the car, drivetrain collapsed, front crumpled, dash shifted up and out of the way, airbags deployed, seatbelt caught me. But everything from the A frame to the C frame was completely intact. Doors opened without issues, and if you looked from the back you'd almost say it was a minor accident.
I walked away from the accident, much to the surprise of first responders that arrived on the scene and saw the carnage of my cars front-end.
I went back and bought another one, just a model year newer as soon as insurance sorted everything out. Modern cars are cages designed to protect their occupants, and I am very happy that is the case!
[+] [-] userbinator|10 years ago|reply
http://www.car-accidents.com/pages/accident_story/11-11-04.h...
[+] [-] userbinator|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Pxtl|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] colanderman|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lostmsu|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mulcahey|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aidos|10 years ago|reply
I can't zoom in because I'm on a mobile but the final picture looks like it has the vehicle off in the distance. If so, I can't believe how far off the road it is - it must have really been moving at the time. Does it have telemetry data they can use post accident to figure out speeds and things?
[+] [-] mschuster91|10 years ago|reply
I would be surprised if not.
The problem is that unlike years ago, the cops can now use the data of your own car to screw you over for speeding, improper turns, running red lights... and insurances already offer heavy discounts to those who let themselves be data mined for every meter they drive.
Hello 1984.
[+] [-] lancefisher|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] frik|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] thevibesman|10 years ago|reply
It doesn't really mean anything, but as someone who has been in a bad crash into a concrete barrier in a Volvo (all four doors able to open and everyone walked away); comparing how that front-end looked to the Tesla, I got the feeling the Tesla would do well.
> the Tesla S doesn't look that special
As someone who always drove Volvos when I owned a car, and knowing---as some in this thread have pointed out---that some cars don't fair as well in accidents, to me this article didn't point out that the Tesla S is "special" but I was glad to see it is in the class of cars where you can crunch the front end and have an intact cabin. Makes me feel better about my feeling that if I ever buy a car again it might be a Tesla not a Volvo.
[+] [-] roflchoppa|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] derFunk|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gozur88|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] james_pm|10 years ago|reply
Perhaps Tesla could offer some innovation in the form of a de-tuned mode that triggers in the absence of a certain set of keys or pin entry.
[+] [-] Overtonwindow|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] benaston|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] flyinghamster|10 years ago|reply
As far as I'm concerned, the second-generation Corvair was considerably safer than typical small cars of the era; the trunk was large, the gas tank was behind the front axle, and the first-generation Corvair's swing axle rear suspension was superseded by a fully-independent design.
I'd feel safer even in a first-generation Corvair than in a classic VW Beetle. F*ck Nader.
[+] [-] ck2|10 years ago|reply
Tesla should make a "teenage driving mode" the parent can set.
So if there had been a huge heavy engine in the front, they probably would have been eating it with a front impact that hard?
[+] [-] chx|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ccvannorman|10 years ago|reply