Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Transportation

Tesla Model X the First SUV Ever To Achieve 5-Star Crash Rating in Every Category (tesla.com) 103

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has awarded the 2017 Tesla Model X five-star crash safety ratings in every category. From the company's blog: More than just resulting in a 5-star rating, the data from NHTSA's testing shows that Model X has the lowest probability of injury of any SUV it has ever tested. In fact, of all the cars NHTSA has ever tested, Model X's overall probability of injury was second only to Model S. Model X performs so much better in a crash than gas-powered SUVs because of its all-electric architecture and powertrain design. The rigid, fortified battery pack that powers Model X is mounted beneath the floor of the vehicle creating a center of gravity so low that Model X has the lowest rollover probability of any SUV on the road. No other SUV has ever come close to meeting and exceeding this rollover requirement.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tesla Model X the First SUV Ever To Achieve 5-Star Crash Rating in Every Category

Comments Filter:
  • car analogy (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 13, 2017 @06:05PM (#54612733)

    Can anyone explain this in car analogy?

  • lowest probability of injury(*) of any SUV it has ever tested

    (*) of the person inside the SUV. People in the other vehicle are SOL.

    • Sure but (Score:5, Informative)

      by Anubis350 ( 772791 ) on Tuesday June 13, 2017 @06:21PM (#54612867)
      Sure, but that's true if you get hit by a semi too, or honestly if you're in a car of any kind and get ploughed by an F-350 or above even. it's not like they mounted guns on the thing and told the NHTSA "go mad max on any vehicle coming towards you" to game the test and make it safer at the cost of being lethal to others
      • I would totally buy that, electric or not. No more gridlock traffic for me!
      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        It's a classic arms race. People see cars around them getting bigger and more menacing, and the drivers of those cars driving less defensively due to their height and size derived confidence, so decide to get a bigger car themselves.

        The UK has reached the backlash phase now, where people in SUVs and crossovers get treated less generously. People are less likely to make way for them etc. We call them "Chelsea tractors" because while designed for off-road use they are most often seen driving around posh urban

    • lowest probability of injury(*) of any SUV it has ever tested

      (*) of the person inside the SUV. People in the other vehicle are SOL.

      What is the point of this comment? There is always a smaller or larger vehicle on the road. The smaller vehicle loses. A Honda Fit can tear up a Smart Car pretty badly.

    • Re:Asterisk missing (Score:5, Informative)

      by Flicker ( 4495 ) on Tuesday June 13, 2017 @08:14PM (#54613479)

      Actually not true. In fact, your statement is the opposite of true because other vehicles / pedestrians / bicycles involved in a collision with a Model X have a better chance of survival than they would with an alternative vehicle, not worse. Unlike most SUVs the Model X does not achieve improved results from high mass or high body rigidity that can overwhelm another vehicle or obstacle but rather because it has larger and better designed crumple zones which allow longer and smoother deceleration in a collision. This is possible because the entire drive train is down below the collision height. For pedestrian and cyclist collisions the front hood additionally is designed to crush under impact and soften the blow. They can do this with the X better than most ICE vehicles because there's no rigid engine under the front hood.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Elon mentionned a few times that what matters is the total crumple zone of both cars (at least in collision where crumple zone matters). Meaning that it's safer to be hit by a tesla with a bigger crumple zone then by an equivalent ICE vehicule with half the crumble zone. If a normal ICE car has a crumble of 1, when they hit each other they split a total of 2 in 2, 1 each. If a tesla has a crumple zone of 2 it means that the total crumple zone is 3 and each car get 1.5 the crumple zone and both cars are safe

    • Just last week, I was driving home (in suburban Sydney) when an SUV collided with another vehicle (he jumped a red light, but really wasn't going terribly fast, I doubt he was going over 50kph).

      Result - it rolled. (And slid along the road upside down towards me, but that's another underwear changing story).

      I think everybody should stop driving these huge and dangerous vehicles altogether. Electric or otherwise. Mind you, had it bee a Tesla, with a huge battery set low in the car, it might not have rolled, a

      • Some families (like mine) don't fit in anything less than a minivan. It is safer for us to risk the "rollover" rather than "lapping it" .

        That said, we usually just rent an minivan for long drives and risk lapping in the city it even though we are more likely to be in an accident in the city. Gas + cost of SUV is just to damn high.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    The Tesla Model X has recieved the first ever 6 star rating for over-ratedness.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Looks like a freaking sedan to me.

  • by Zobeid ( 314469 ) on Tuesday June 13, 2017 @06:25PM (#54612881)

    It's like they took a Model S and then stretched it vertically a bit and called it a SUV. (And added FALCON DOORS!!) To most normal people that's not a SUV.

    I love Tesla, but the rationale of the Model X has always been a mystery to me.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Umm. Because they did not want to call it a minivan.

    • I agree, as an X owner, that it's more of a CUV. I also, though, agree that the vast majority of SUVs don't do much "sport" and seem mostly to be vehicles to 1) make people feel safe because "big" = "safe" and 2) carry a lot of stuff without being a minivan. In that regard, the line between SUV and CUV is pretty blurry.

      The X is certainly not a sedan. I think CUV or crossover is a perfect description. It's sure as heck nothing like a minivan.

    • by AlanObject ( 3603453 ) on Tuesday June 13, 2017 @07:56PM (#54613393)

      To most normal people that's not a SUV.

      It isn't an SUV and it isn't a cross-over. It is a mini-van pure and simple.

      • No Offroad capability,
      • No way to carry a load on the top (Kayak, skis, surfboard, etc.)
      • Probably not good for extreme weather.

      OK for soccer moms and stuff but not an SUV.

      • It can handle offroad better than most sedans, but not as well as some SUVs. It's in between.

        The top mounted stuff is annoying, I'll grant you that one. But it's also not necessary for people that don't need to haul sports items that are that size.

        Not sure what extreme weather you're thinking of. Yes, range goes down in cold weather...but depends on the range you need.

    • by DogDude ( 805747 )
      An SUV today is simply a tall sedan. That's exactly what an SUV is. What magic "SUV" criteria do you think "most normal people" are looking for?
      • In some ways, but compare
        https://services.edmunds-media... [edmunds-media.com]
        to
        http://o.aolcdn.com/commerce/a... [aolcdn.com]
        they have a somewhat comparable look but people would not say the first is the same type of car as the second. The Tesla X looks almost the same as the first.
      • An SUV today is simply a tall sedan. That's exactly what an SUV is.

        Actually, it isn't. A tall sedan is merely a crossover utility vehicle. They are actually calling them CUVs now; not just the press, but the automakers' media flacks as well. I don't know that a real body-on-frame design is the cutoff between a CUV and an SUV, but I do know that the model X is only a crossover by at least everyone's definition but Tesla's.

    • Tesla does this for other cars of theirs. For instance the Tesla S is sold as a full size luxury sedan. If you compare it to other full size luxury sedans it is not even close to features, size or comfort-ability. However they claim that they are the best selling full sized luxury sedans, which they are. If you take the sedan and do a feature comparison it is a good mid-sized luxury sedan however in the sales in that segment they are not in any top sales.
    • How is it not an SUV? It's got seating for up to 7 people, more cargo space than a Subaru Forester (even more if you remove the seats), and all-wheel drive. It does have less clearance (5.4"), which may be a dealbreaker for some. Still, as someone who drives a Crosstrek right now, this would be my dream SUV. If I had the money, I'd get this and not even consider any other SUV.

    • by mjwx ( 966435 )

      It's like they took a Model S and then stretched it vertically a bit and called it a SUV. (And added FALCON DOORS!!) To most normal people that's not a SUV.

      I love Tesla, but the rationale of the Model X has always been a mystery to me.

      Because SUV is a word without a definition. Most SUV's are just jacked up hatchbacks or wagons with body kits. Almost none of them are suitable to go offroad and most don't even have greater ground clearance than their hatch/wagon counterparts. You can pretty much call anything an SUV as long as you've made it look slightly bigger and a lot uglier.

      There are good reasons us motoring enthusiasts go to great lengths to avoid having proper 4x4's thrown in with SUV's. A 4x4 like a Hilux or Patrol can be taken

    • It's like they took a Model S and then stretched it vertically a bit and called it a SUV. (And added FALCON DOORS!!) To most normal people that's not a SUV.

      I love Tesla, but the rationale of the Model X has always been a mystery to me.

      So true. But gota admit I still want it.

      0-60 3.3 sec.

      * drinks more koolaid

      ...

      in a sippy cup b/c it's gona spill at those g's! ... and the kids have sippy cups lying around anyway

      ...

      God I'm old.

    • by B1700 ( 4884853 )
      Can you put a lift kit on it? Noooo. Big gnarly tires? Nooooo. A brush guard? Noooo. Throw a dead deer in the back? Well maybe. It's still not an SUV.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    No jumped up four wheeled iron doohickey will ever be better than my horse, gadnammit.

  • Back in the 1980s, I had a 1973 Mercury Marquis. My brother was driving it once and rear-ended a Honda Accord at about 5 miles an hour - the Marquis had no damage, while the Honda's back end was completely destroyed.

    That Marquis probably could've crushed a Tesla Model X to a singularity without even slowing down.

    • I had a '73 LTD, that thing was a tank. Power everything and heated seats... So big, the corners had rubber bumpers because you just couldn't see them.

      • I had a '73 LTD, that thing was a tank. Power everything and heated seats... So big, the corners had rubber bumpers because you just couldn't see them.

        My Dad swore by and at his LTD station wagons. He loved those things. I'm pretty sure he cried when they stopped making them. They could haul the family, a boat, and even lumber without missing a beat. Fortunately parts were cheap because there was always something breaking down. I definitely learned a lot about car maintenance as a kid.

        I also learned to drive and took my driving test using the LTD. If you could park a LTD station wagon in a city, you could park just about anything.

        They were definitel

      • by haruchai ( 17472 )

        Beginning in 1973 and until 1982, all cars sold in the American market had massive & weird bumpers due to attempts to comply with the "5-mph-no-damage" rule.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Guspaz ( 556486 )

      What do you prefer, damage to your car, or damage to yourself? Cars have crumple zones for a reason, and if the car is totally rigid and the frame remains in the same shape after a crash, that means that all of the energy was transferred directly to the passengers.

      • With the Marquis, it had so much mass that all the energy got transferred to the other car. ;-)

        • by Guspaz ( 556486 )

          Then surely carrying around 120 kilowatt hours of batteries adds a decent chunk of mass to the vehicle :)

    • The real question, then, is what would happen if two Marquis got into a crash...
      • The real question, then, is what would happen if two Marquis got into a crash...

        It would compress reality and destroy the 1/3 of the galaxy around it.

      • by haruchai ( 17472 )

        The real question, then, is what would happen if two Marquis got into a crash...

        A new universe would be created

    • I'd rather my car get totaled while I live to tell the tale. Those old tanks don't do you any good if you die from all that trauma your body experiences because your car doesn't act like a shock absorber.
    • by Socguy ( 933973 )
      A car surviving a crash intact is a very bad thing. Crumple zones are there to absorb energy. If a vehicle doesn't crumple, that means it's sending all the energy through to the soft, meaty passengers.
  • by Luthair ( 847766 ) on Tuesday June 13, 2017 @09:57PM (#54614063)
    Fucking really?
  • I don't care what you say. This is not an SUV. There's nothing utilitarian about it. Until it looks like a pickup truck, can haul 1000-2000 lbs, and go off-road without destroying itself, it's just a car.

To be a kind of moral Unix, he touched the hem of Nature's shift. -- Shelley

Working...