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.
car analogy (Score:5, Funny)
Can anyone explain this in car analogy?
Re:car analogy (Score:5, Funny)
Error: recursive car analogy exception
Asterisk missing (Score:1)
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)
Re: Sure but (Score:2)
Re: Sure but (Score:4, Funny)
Killing the driver in front of you will not improve traffic or shorten your commute that day. Trust me on this.
Re: Sure but (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Killing the driver in front of you will not improve traffic or shorten your commute that day. Trust me on this.
But all your future commutes & housing will be provided by the government.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
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
SUVs are stupid (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Even more unprecedented! (Score:1)
The Tesla Model X has recieved the first ever 6 star rating for over-ratedness.
SUV? (Score:1)
Looks like a freaking sedan to me.
How is this even a SUV? (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes - they're mostly marketed towards men though. Men don't want to drive "a minivan", so this entire industry of macho-looking (and less functional!) minivans was created.
But the Model X is not an SUV, it's a "crossover". Which is just a macho-looking station wagon, of course.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's bigger than you think. The model S has the same legroom/interior space as a long wheelbase car, despite its overall length, because the motor takes up so much less room (you can even get a rumple seat). The model X is a reasonably-sized station wagon - like other crossovers, the space in the back is taller vertically and shorter along the central axis than the 70s station wagons.
If it weren't festooned with silliness like the hawk-wing doors, it would be a very practical car. But sadly, it just sill
Re: (Score:1)
Umm. Because they did not want to call it a minivan.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
I think some of us are old fashioned enough to expect SUV (or even CUV) to have high clearance and off-road capability as its main distinguishing characteristic from regular cars. The ideal SUVs were trucks without the truck bed, and we can imagine them getting better engineered without losing that core concept even if they get a unibody.
At this point, it seems that SUV means anything that is not a sedan. The name seems to be applied to minivans-without-sliding-door, hatchbacks, station wagons, and even "c
Re: (Score:3)
As an aside, it used to be that SUVs were essentially cars built on truck bodies. They were good and sturdy--the sort of thing you wanted when you were off-roading. Of course, they weren't necessarily that safe--trucks don't have to worry about the same safety-standards as passenger cars because they're generally not used that way. Of course, they also handle and ride differently.
CUVs/crossovers are built on car bodies so they handle and ride more like cars.
Re: (Score:2)
You think Land Rover just didn't make a 5-star safety rated $100k Range Rover because they didn't feel like people wanted the safety rating? They already make the $100k SUV...you think they thought "Hmm. I bet 5-star safety rating would make this a less marketable SUV..."
Pretty sure they designed the safest car they thought they could while making a car they thought people wanted to buy...and they didn't get the 5-stars. Pretty sure that's the same for every other SUV manufacturer.
Re: (Score:1)
You're totally missing the point. I just bought a Forester, so I'm well aware of what happened here. My forester if 5 star in everything but rollover, where it gets a 4 star. The Model X, which really isn't even an SUV IMO got the 5 star in rollover too. Not quite so impressive when you put it in blunt terms.
Re: (Score:2)
How am I missing the point? You think Subaru had a fix that would have moved them from a 4 to 5 star rollover category and just chose to not implement it? The post above said "if another car company had thought there would be [sic] they would have done it." Some SUV got "mostly 5 star" but the X got "all 5 stars." I recognize it's not massively better, but it's still a true statement to say that it's the first to get all 5 stars in all categories. There's no evidence for the implication that another company
Re:How is this even a SUV? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
OK for soccer moms and stuff but not an SUV.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Typical Slashdot Comment (Score:1)
No jumped up four wheeled iron doohickey will ever be better than my horse, gadnammit.
Re: (Score:3)
As for m
Bah, silly toy cars (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
With the Marquis, it had so much mass that all the energy got transferred to the other car. ;-)
Re: (Score:2)
Then surely carrying around 120 kilowatt hours of batteries adds a decent chunk of mass to the vehicle :)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The real question, then, is what would happen if two Marquis got into a crash...
A new universe would be created
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably pretty good with the right tires. The weight is all down low and it has a massive amount of low-end torque, not to mention very good traction control. It also has a very stiff body. While it may not have as high of clearance as some other cars (though with active suspension it can raise itself), other than that it should do quite well. http://insideevs.com/tesla-mod... [insideevs.com]
A Press Release???? (Score:3)
That's NOT an SUV (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Exactly. There is no star rating for "chance of injury due to fire".
Re: (Score:1)
Tell that to Richard Hammond.
Re: (Score:2)
Who got out safely, of a supercar, which was designed for lightness, not to be actually safe. If you remove the safety (structural, cooling, crash mitigation) features from the battery, it gets lighter, and your supercar goes faster.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, if you want to lower your chances of fires and explosions when driving, then you go electric. As it is, diesel and esp gasoline are much higher risk of either blowing up, or worse, putting you on fire and just burning you alive.
With tesla, no explosions, and when the battery catches fire, the car will pull over and tell you to get out.