Engadget article is a clumsy rewrite of this with some added padding. I too wonder how this car is on the market without having passed federal safety tests.
>I too wonder how this car is on the market without having passed federal safety tests.
You don't have to crash test a car to sell it. You just get in trouble for selling it if the results (either real world or lab) turn out to be unacceptable after the fact. This system of requiring compliance and then doing spot checks and enforcing after the fact seems to work fine (across many industries, not just cars).
Based on my understanding of some european cars not being allowed to be sold in the USA because of failing frontal crash tests, I was under the impression all cars had to pass local tests before being available for purchase
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26444467/ns/business-autos/t/perfe...
The inside pictures are quite stunning from my perspective. The cabin is almost fully in tact with no compression inside and what looks like a totally functional main control screen. The only real crash indicators are the airbags and the cracked windshield. I’m no expert, but it seems like it did an excellent job at keeping the occupant alive by virtue of simply keeping the entire cabin healthy.
The pictures are indeed stunning but with no other _verifiable_ information (like the exact circumstances such as speed) these should be taken with a grain of salt especially on Reddit, which is considered basically Tesla's astroturf.
This is an important idea in performance vehicle design - in a crash, the 'capsule' around the occupant must not be compromised. You see this pretty vividly in bad F1 crashes. Granted, those vehicles are so weight optimized that they'll lose a wheel if they tap a kerb, but in particularly bad wrecks you'll see that the entire car, aside from the capsule has pretty much disintegrated.
example: Fendando Alonso's 2016 crash. Looking at photos, the car had been reduced to a capsule with a bit of engine and wheel sticking off of it. Alonso climbed out of the cockpit himself.
We don't seem to know how hard the roll-over was but we can see at least three of the doors still open. Part of that will be because they are pillar-less so less likely to jam at the top but it's still pretty impressive.
So is this just the gratuitous 'Musk has fucked up, better send out some PR pieces'? Because this article is basically just some guy off reddit. How would you feel walking into a showroom asking about how it fairs in crash tests and the salesmen says 'well some guy on reddit said it was fine'?
Sample size of one in uncontrolled circumstances (i.e. one crash in the real world as opposed to semi-scientifically conducted crash tests designed to give information from which we can infer real world performance) tells us very little.
Depending on the circumstances a barrel roll down the highway and/or median could be a batting practice pitch over home plate because there's practically an eternity over which the vehicle decelerates (or it could be a really tough crash, it depends on the details, we don't know).
Edit: and I'm wrong because? I'm not even bashing Tesla here.
Pretty sure the sales guy would mention, you know... actual crash test results. I agree this might be PR spin but the Tesla (all of them) tests quite well, well enough that they don't need to rely on "some guy on Reddit".
Edit: I realized this is specifically about the Model 3, which doesn't have official data yet. What I said is probably still accurate - what do BMW salespeople say about a new model that doesn't have data in yet? Probably: "Look how safe our other cars are!"
If you look up crash ratings, you will find it's not uncommon for new car models to be missing them. It just isn't something that is done before the first unit is sold - presumably because as other people mentioned, it has to be done independently to be useful. Of course there must be internal tests, but there's no use in publicizing them because of the conflict of interest, and I'm sure if Tesla did that, people would point out the problem.
People who are concerned about Tesla unwittingly give away the fact they don't browse the IIHS web site for fun. It is educational.
If you search for the Honda Insight on said IIHS site, you will find the old one that ceased production in 2014, not the new one that just arrived at my local Honda dealer. This is not shocking if you had any interest in the subject independent of Tesla.
The NHTSA site lists the 2019 Insight, but surprise, surprise, it says it is not rated.
It does make sense, I just always thought that new models had to be crash-tested before being allowed on the market. I'm clearly wrong in this assumption.
I think the person you're replying to was asking how to Model 3 in general is allowed to be sold and driven without crash test results available, not how the specific vehicle in the article is allowed to be re-sold after an accident.
Tesla is still having problems increasing production of the Model 3. The automation didn’t work as planned. Is there any hope that they can get close to 10,000 cars a week?
I don't think they can maintain 5,000 Model 3's a week pace without improving their process. However, ramping from 5,000 to 10,000 cars per week is simpler than getting to 5,000 per week.
Also, 5,000 is in reference to just Model 3's. "The delivery breakdown for the quarter was 18,440 Model 3’s, 10,930 Model S vehicles, and 11,370 Model X SUVs." https://electrek.co/2018/07/02/tesla-official-model-3-produc... 5,000 Model 3's per week ~= 65,000 per quarter.
We don't have the details on what's going on at Tesla.
- Musk rushed the lines design (mistake)
- Car were still too wire friendly (mistake)
Now IF musk and his partners start to get a hold of line design and programming, and if they're able to redesign internals to meet the previous point. They might be able to get stable.
Anyway, I was trying to pick the brains of HN to understand the assembly line. Can the automation be addressed and the people reduced, for example. Where is the most difficultly with automation?
Sometimes I forget that trying to have a meaningful conversation can be perceived as being against something.
My mistake.
Btw, I have never had a position in TSLA. I’d simply like to see them to be successful, as with all of Elon’s endeavors.
Your mistake was thinking that an article with the word "Tesla" in the headline means you talk about anything Tesla-related that suits your fancy. This article is about roll-over safety, and has nothing to do with Tesla's production abilities now or in the future.
Sometimes I do if I see an interesting article there.
> People know me by name.
I don't :-)
> Sometimes I forget that trying to have a meaningful conversation can be perceived as being against something.
Context is everything. With Tesla having so much money betting against it, and this fact being a recent newsworthy event, along with accusations of various actors manipulating public opinion to influence markets to favour the short-sellers, I just found it amusing that in a positive article about Tesla here was a post sowing doubt about their production process.
What you mentioned is surely an interesting and meaningful conversation to have, but context is important.
While meeting those goals is important to Tesla's success, from the article: "... Tesla didn't sacrifice safety in its scramble to meet production goals"
Engadget article is a clumsy rewrite of this with some added padding. I too wonder how this car is on the market without having passed federal safety tests.
IIHS link http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/tesla/model-3-4-d...