There's a clip of Elon driving one in public roads and the truck is so large that while performing a left turn it bumps over a cone in the center lane. It's really a massive car, just crazy to picture it in a regular road in most European cities.
> Because passive safety and pedestrian protection are very important in Germany. The body must therefore be designed in such a way that it deliberately deforms in an accident and absorbs the energy of the impact in order to minimize injuries.
This is exactly what I was wondering about the minute I saw the Cybertruck presentation. In the event of a crash, the stiffness would be horrible for people in or outside of the vehicle.
For those inside as well. The reason most car companies don't use cold rolled steel is not because they are cash grabs but because if there was no deformation in the car all energy will be directly transferred to the occupants.
I am sure that tesla has something in their back pocket for this obvious flaw. Also I doubt the cybertruck will come to Europe. Certainly not in its current form.
Wonder how firefighters/paramedics would try to extricate casualties from a cyber-truck in the event of an emergency. Usually the standard practice involves tearing the vehicle down.
We have some communities who use the swedish method.. Two chains,and basically tear the car open- the standard method is stil to use hydrolic shears and tears.
Vehicles with gull-wing doors have doors that automatically detach after a rollover crash since they cannot be opened if the vehicle is upside down. A similar emergency release could be used?
Teslas to date have had some of the best collision performance of any vehicle ever built. This is partially due to the characteristics of EV’s, but it’s also the result of good engineering combined with the deliberate prioritization of vehicle safety.
It’s entirely possible Tesla will throw that all away with Cybertruck, but is that likely?
This baseless speculation is rather silly until it’s closer to actual production. We have no idea how it will do in crash testing. It’s not hard to imagine they’ve taken engineering steps to help with this. Tesla has an excellent record in crash testing with the Model S, X, and 3; in my opinion they deserve some benefit of the doubt.
The argument is not that we should trust Tesla to self-certify.
The argument is that they have shipped 3 cars in Europe. All their cars got among the best, if not the best, crash test ratings by every government and non-profit agency that tested their cars.
They deserve benefit of the doubt because they've demonstrated several times that they know what they're doing.
A can't say the same about randos speculating how Tesla will fail to certify their 5th or 6th car in Europe (after Model Y and possibly Roadster and Semi).
Being a TUV expert doesn't really make up for the fact that the guy is commenting based on a video of an early prototype.
Not to mention that people seem to arguing that Cybertruck is not safe... for other cars.
Hummer was sold in Europe. Tell me again how stupidly large and heavy cars can't possibly be certified for European sales.
The Hummer is classified as a small truck in Europe (>3.5t and <=7.5t). You need a special C1 driver's license for that which costs a few hundred euros and you need to be recertified every few years. It's highly unlikely that Tesla will sell it in Europe under those circumstances.
Also, in the EU, no car manufacturer self-certifies. In Germany for example it's the Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt (similar to the American DOT) that certifies vehicles to be street-legal.
You make it sound like customers don't care about safety. If company will deliver better customer satisfaction they will get more profit. If anything I would trust a for-profit motive more than a feature forced by regulations.
I would argue that more innovations and overall safety for passengers increased more due markets than it did due regulations. While it might not be the priority, but more pedestrian safety is still a nice thing to have.
Ahhh, the "Magical Market" that solves all... even in the most capitalists of countries safety regulations are necessary.
Manufacturers' optimisations for making their cars enticing to you does not mean they have to put a lot of thought in making their cars safe for _others_ on the road.
Safety Regulation is there to make sure those constraints are given a high priority in the design of equipment so it doesn't kill you, your passengers or the people around you.
>Manufacturers' optimisations for making their cars enticing to you does not mean they have to put a lot of thought in making their cars safe for _others_ on the road.
It does if it is important for customer. And even if it doesn't - it doesn't mean they will make it dangerous for pedestrians. Furthermore, regulations come from what market innovates.
An imperfect analogy on why regulations don't always bring best results: having side mirrors is incredibly important safety regulation. That is of course until you can introduce better safety by not having them, but regulation prevents you from doing so (cameras)
Customers are dumb. People are putting CIA-level surveillance equipment into their homes just to not get up from the couch to turn the lights on. The Stasi or Nazis would have loved that back then.
If a car costs $1,000 less but would catch fire in an instant when turned on its roof, people would opt for the money, I guarantee you that, because when was the last time you car was upside down?
In 1973 Ford made a cost-benefit analysis for the Pinto after it was revealed that it tended to catch fire extremely quickly after rear-end collisions. Ford concluded that paying victim's families after a deadly crash was cheaper than redesigning the car. So they kept it the way it was.
From 2000 to 2010 Toyota used cheap materials in their cars that made cars accelerate and crash. It's estimated that 89 people died due to this in the US alone.
Your blind believe in "the market" is simply wrong. Without regulatory oversight, this might never have come to light and you would still see Toyotas running into barriers or Fords burning after an accident. Just you wouldn't actually know about it because it's relatively rare.
>> We have no idea how it will do in crash testing
Yes, we do. The recommendation for car to have easily-deformable zone in the front was based on thousands of crash-tests. Musk might be your superhero, but he still cannot bypass basic laws of physics.
He is not my “superhero” and I certainly am familiar with physics given that I studied it. Insults like that lower the level of discourse here. I’m simply suggesting we wait for some evidence; you’re the one making baseless accusations.
Well if the outer layer does not deform that's not generally bad, no? It could still crumple behind that and the structure could move like scales when hit on the edges. I'd guess it depends a lot on whats underneath, after all it's not an exo-sceleton (or is it?).
edit: thanks for the replies. I somehow thought if you get hit as a pedestrian it's super bad anyways... didn't know the crumple zone does much for you there.
It’s relatively easy to make a car exterior that won’t crumple in an accident, the reason cars don’t have that is that the inelastic deformation of the car structure absorbs quite a lot of energy during an impact, which would otherwise be transferred to the vehicle in form of kinetic energy. You might say a little energy difference is not important but for a passenger or a pedestrian / cyclist hit by the car it can be the difference between suffering light bruises and dying from the impact. When I saw Tesla’s design with the ultra hard steel and sharp edges I immediately thought this thing is a large danger to other people on the street, especially cyclists and pedestrians.
Does it make much difference if a car can crumple or not when it's hitting a sack of flesh? I don't think my skin and bones are going to stand up well in either scenario.
I'm not sure this is comparable. The question is, does the crumbling matter against a person not in another car. I've seen small super-brittle cars not being damaged at all by a collision with a pedestrian.
Ncap includes these tests and it seems they're more interested in flexibility in that case, not in crumbling.
I agree, but you can also crash into concrete walls and bollards where you'd want a crumple zone.
A crumple zone in an EV is pretty simple though, since you don't have to worry about the heavy engine getting shoved into the front passengers.
I'm not sure why it's such a popular notion that the cybertruck won't crumple? It's literally got a big empty space at the front as a feature.
Ordinary cars crumple but they don't fall apart if you lean on them or drive down a bumpy road. They have strength in some situations and specially designed failure modes in others.
It could be as simple as putting some scores in the metal so that it folds in a particular way when sufficient force is applied.
> I'm not sure why it's such a popular notion that the cybertruck won't crumple? It's literally got a big empty space at the front as a feature.
Because it's supposed to be bulletproof and have a virtually indestructible surface which you cannot dent or scratch. It's possible that this was meant as nothing more than resistance to minor assault but taking the statement literally and assuming a completely rigid reinforced frame makes a lot of sense.
> Ordinary cars crumple but they don't fall apart if you lean on them or drive down a bumpy road.
Ordinary cars are not billed as bulletproof and virtually indestructible.
Different properties. Bulletproof vests are flexible and distribute the force rather than being just hard and heavy for example. Diamonds are scratch resistant, but shatter.
Until we see the actual tests, it's all just speculation with minimal information. Resisting a hammer does not prove anything about collisions.
> Well if the outer layer does not deform that's not generally bad, no?
Yes it is.
Crumple zones are designed to both avoid going straight through through whatever they hit (which is usually an other car, though avoiding pasting pedestrian is also a good idea if you can), and disperse the energy of the collision to provide progressive deceleration.
Rigid frames are the original state of cars design, and it was bad, because when the car does not absorb the impact and progressively decelerate (again thanks to crumple zones) all the force of the crash ends up with the vehicle's occupants. Which is the exact opposite of what you're looking for: you want to sacrifice what's outside the safety cell in order to limit or nullify damage inside the safety cell (companies are even working on "sledding" the survival cell and adding dedicated shock absorbers, especially in smaller city cars where there isn't much space for crumple zones to do their work)./
I am wondering how you get out of it in case of an accident. I’d expect Tesla to take precautions, but at this point in time it seems like people could get seriously trapped in there.
This car is of course not build for europe or asia. Here are also almost no large pickups like Dodge Ram or the F150. A friend had for a short time such a car in switzerland. It was fun, but just to large for any public parking and such. But yeah the european companys don't even have small electric cars, so they just complain about everything.
The Renault Zoe is increasingly common here in the UK, the electric Fiat 500 has been around for a while now, VW have an extensive range, BMW have at least a couple I'm aware of. A significant number of the suggested cars in this list are made by European manufacturers
There is no way this vehicle will get approved in Europe. I don't think the design is even salvageable. The folded stainless steel unibody goes fundamentally against our expectation of both passenger and pedestrian safety.
Since virtually no one drives gigantic american-style pickups in EU, it makes no sense for Tesla to develop a separate alternative EU-regulation-compatible version based on totally different manufacturing design.
I think it's pretty dishonest that Tesla asks for deposits for Cybertruck over here, since I believe they don't plan to ever sell them to us.
And I'm saying that as a person who likes Tesla, Inc. very much.
> Since virtually no one drives gigantic american-style pickups in EU
Farmers and other people who work in land industries use them all over the world. Have you been out of a city much? What do you think they use instead? The brands just tend to be Japanese outside the US.
Most people are not farmers. Even then, have you seen the size of American F-150 style trucks in person? They are absolutely enormous. Even farmers do not drive cars that big, at least in the UK.
That's what I meant. I have spent a lot of time in the countryside and have visited most of the countries in the EU, but I see a truck like F-150 only once in a few years.
the nearly unilaterally agreed upon english definition for an inmate is not the same as passenger.
>sees black
in english, seeing black is a finance colloquialism at best. at worst, its a pejorative for racist tendencies. im guessing its a different sentiment in Germany entirely.
>Nothing is deformed in the event of an impact, instead enormous forces act on the occupants," says Teller in the "Automobilwoche". "Airbags will no longer help."
This is wildly speculative conjecture based on a single marketing event. No technical authority would ever dream of basing their evaluation on it...unless you wanted to get your name in the press alongside a hot new vehicle.
The concept we're trying to get at here is called a crumple zone. Tesla S, tesla 3, and virtually every other mass produced vehicle on the planet have them as part of a standard safety requirement. There is no reason to propose teslas new truck would not include them.
The article also completely ignores the long standing tradition of safety approval for bullet-proof vehicles. Mercedes G500 and BMW 7 series fitted with rigid armour plating and bulletproof glass are all approved for use in the EU and US. As for unibody vs body on frame construction, youre wrong. body on frame vehicles cannot BY DESIGN have crumple zones to protect pedestrians, and often score lower on crash tests as a result. https://autoreviewhub.com/unibody-vs-body-on-frame/
>in english, seeing black is a finance colloquialism at best. at worst, its a pejorative for racist tendencies. im guessing its a different sentiment in Germany entirely.
Are you a native speaker? I've never heard 'seeing black' said in a racial sense. It is however colloquially used (in the UK at least).
I think it's also an idiom in German (my wife, a German, uses it often). Also not in a racist sense - also simply meaning, to 'see nothing good about' something.
"inmates" is also likely chosen while sloppily translating from German were "inmate" or "Insasse" can be used for occupant interchangeably in this context.
same goes for "seeing black", a common idiom in german, which effectively expresses the idea that your sight goes dark, ie, you see nothing, there is a dark future ahead.
The Hummer was sold in Europe. As a light truck requiring a C1 license, which aside from being different than the B license of a regular car has to be renewed every 5 years (until 60, then 2 years until 76 then 1 year) with a medical exam on each renewal.
The hummer is not as big (h1 is 4.69 m long, the cybertruck is 5.88 m) and that was before all these new regulations for pedestrian safety have been put in place.
Given that Tesla have designed and currently sell the three safest vehicles ever produced in the history of the world, I think it's safe to say they thought a little bit about crash safety on the Cybertruck.
In fact, I'm willing to bet they thought about it a hell of a lot more than people speculating who were not involved in the design process.
let's wait and see what happens, rather than through out wild speculation. (but then, the internet would be pointless I guess)
EDIT: See my reply further down with links to all the safety records Tesla have set.
Also, my point still stands. It's almost a certainty Tesla have spent many millions of dollars and thousands and thousands of design hours on the safety of the Cybertruck, while literally everyone commenting on it (including this expert from Europe) has spent zero.
The article is about an interview with one of the most senior road safety experts in Europe, saying that this does not conform to European approaches to car safety which aim not to protect the car from damage but rather to reduce harm on humans from the crash impact - both those within the car as well as potential pedestrians/cyclists/other drivers/...
Its rather obvious that a car that has a rigid metal structure does not allow many avenues to channel the force of impact - so woe the pedestrian that's hit by a Cybertruck.
No way European regulators - which actually certify and regulate rather than rubber-stamp manufacturers' own views - can let it go through in its current shape and form.
I'm sure the senior road safety experts in Europe are completely unbiased when they are calling for an inspection of this truck publically based on visual appearance alone
I agree the guy is an expert - but let's be perfectly honest. He has never seen, driven or tested one, and has spent zero seconds reviewing and understanding the design. He is purely speculating like everyone else on the internet.
Obviously he knows what he's talking about when it comes to safety and vehicles. I think it's safe to say he knows very, very little about the Cybertruck yet.
This is 100% pure speculation, like almost everything about the Cybertruck on the internet so far.
> Given that Tesla have designed and currently sell the three safest vehicles ever produced in the history of the world, I think it's safe to say they thought a little bit about crash safety on the Cybertruck.
What's your evidence for this extraordinary claim?
IIHS rates the model S as acceptable to good, the model 3 rates good across the board and is a top pick alongside dozens of others, and with six vehicles above it for year 2019. IIHS CRO stated unambiguously:
> I don’t think that our results bear out that it’s the safest car ever
Going with EuroNCAP instead and looking at just 2019 large family car[0] the model 3 does stand out in "safety assistance", it's on par for occupants and non-occupants, and widely beaten by the BMW Series 3 in that latter category.
Had that been GP's claim I would have concurred, but that's a "nothing special" kind of special: they're very good, they're not uniquely exceptional.
GP's claim is not that they're very good, or even exceptional, it's that
> Tesla have designed and currently sell the three safest vehicles ever produced in the history of the world
The only place this sort of shit comes from is Tesla's marketing copies, which is the same singularly dishonest place that brought us "autopilot" for glorified driving assistance.
Quote from Euro N-Cap themselves: "The stand-out performer of this round is undoubtedly Tesla’s Model X, scoring 94 percent for Safety Assist, the same as the Model 3 scored early this year. This makes the two Teslas the best performers in this part of the assessment against Euro NCAP’s most recent protocols"
I could keep Googling... I'm sure there's an award they got for one of the vehicles being the first ever to get 5 stars in North America AND Europe. I think it was the X or the S.
You managed to out-shill tesla's own marketing copy, your link merely states that it got 5 stars from NCAP and outlines points they think are of interest. At no point do they state it's the "first and only SUV" to get 5 stars from either NCAP or NHTSA (they do state it's the first and only SUV to get 5 stars in every single category and sub-category which is an impressive claim but much less so than your statement).
> Quote from Euro N-Cap themselves: "The stand-out performer of this round is undoubtedly Tesla’s Model X, scoring 94 percent for Safety Assist, the same as the Model 3 scored early this year. This makes the two Teslas the best performers in this part of the assessment against Euro NCAP’s most recent protocols"
I don't know if you can't read the quote you provide or you don't remember your original statement: this praises safety assistance, it doesn't say that it's "the […] safest vehicles ever produced in the history of the world".
> I could keep Googling…
Yes I'm sure you could keep shilling, and, frankly, lying.
I don't even understand why you keep doing that, Tesla absolutely does get impressive results and are at the top of the pack, had that been your assertion that would've ben fine, and would have supported your point (regardless of your point being somewhat off from the article's explicit concerns about pedestrian safety on which Tesla scores are generally good but in the low 70s where other cars manage 80s and even the rare low 90s for the Z4[0] and the CLA[1]).
> they do state it's the first and only SUV to get 5 stars in every single category and sub-category which is an impressive claim but much less so than your statement
If it's the first and only SUV to get 5 stars in every single category and sub-category.... doesn't that make it the safest ever, by ver definition?
If not, why not?
Also it's odd you use the word "claim". There are no "claims" here, there are factual safety ratings by independent government bodies. The NHTSA is not "claiming" it gets 5 starts in every category and sub-category, they are factually stating that it does. It sounds like you're trying to use language to make facts seen less like facts and more like opinions. Please don't do that, it's very dishonest.
Maybe the disagreement here is around the detail. NCAP give a star rating, but that's less granular than their actual scores. For example, for Adult occupant safety, the Tesla X scores very very well, but the Mazda CX-30 scores better. For child occupant safety, the Tesla is quite a long way down the rankings (still good, but 22 cars tested in 2019 do better). The case is similar for pedestrian safety - 18 cars score better than the best Tesla. In fact, the only area where Teslas seem to have a significant lead is in safety assist systems, which is things like seatbelt warning systems, speeding warning, lane assist and automatic braking.
Nobody can plausibly claim that Teslas aren't incredibly safe cars, but "Safest on the planet" is not substantiated, and in particular the exact point under discussion here is pedestrian safety, and the ratings substantiate the claim that this is not one of the areas in which Tesla has a lead. https://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/latest-safety-ra...
> Tesla have designed and currently sell the three safest vehicles ever produced in the history of the world,
I've never seen anything to suggest that Tesla cars are the safest available. They generally appear in the top group on rankings but I've not seen any where they actually had the top spots.
Disgusting person your father.
In Berlin, just a few weeks ago a whole bunch of people died because the driver of a huge SUV had a seizure and the SUV made crumple zones out of cars and people.
> While the launch of the electric pickup proudly demonstrated that even a strong blow with the sledgehammer does not leave a dent on the car door, this would pose a security risk in Germany.
Yeah, all mentions of "Sicherheit" in the linked source (which is just a mainstream news channel transcribing some car magazine interview btw) would best be translated with safety, rather than security.
I think the plan is to release cybertruck at the same time when fully-autonomous driving is predicted to be ready. In that scenario, it would be significantly less likely to crash and cybertruck wound be safer car than the ones with different materials, but dumber.
The key to safety is human error prevention, not materials. It’s like preventing illness vs. treating the symptoms.
On the other side, It’s very questionable when the fully-autonomous driving will be ready.
So the article basically says that it will be interesting to see what Tesla comes up with to give this car passive safety for passengers and pedestrians.
Given the fact that the rest of Teslas fleet has excellent ratings in that regard Ì‘m quite sure that this concept is not exactly new for their engineers.
97 comments
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 171 ms ] threadThe video: https://mobile.twitter.com/langejanne/status/120377531270789...
This is exactly what I was wondering about the minute I saw the Cybertruck presentation. In the event of a crash, the stiffness would be horrible for people in or outside of the vehicle.
I am sure that tesla has something in their back pocket for this obvious flaw. Also I doubt the cybertruck will come to Europe. Certainly not in its current form.
It’s entirely possible Tesla will throw that all away with Cybertruck, but is that likely?
The argument is that they have shipped 3 cars in Europe. All their cars got among the best, if not the best, crash test ratings by every government and non-profit agency that tested their cars.
They deserve benefit of the doubt because they've demonstrated several times that they know what they're doing.
A can't say the same about randos speculating how Tesla will fail to certify their 5th or 6th car in Europe (after Model Y and possibly Roadster and Semi).
Being a TUV expert doesn't really make up for the fact that the guy is commenting based on a video of an early prototype.
Not to mention that people seem to arguing that Cybertruck is not safe... for other cars.
Hummer was sold in Europe. Tell me again how stupidly large and heavy cars can't possibly be certified for European sales.
Also, in the EU, no car manufacturer self-certifies. In Germany for example it's the Kraftfahrt-Bundesamt (similar to the American DOT) that certifies vehicles to be street-legal.
I don't believe you need to be recertified per se. As far as I know, you need a medical exam but that aside it's an administrative procedure.
Manufacturers' optimisations for making their cars enticing to you does not mean they have to put a lot of thought in making their cars safe for _others_ on the road.
Safety Regulation is there to make sure those constraints are given a high priority in the design of equipment so it doesn't kill you, your passengers or the people around you.
It does if it is important for customer. And even if it doesn't - it doesn't mean they will make it dangerous for pedestrians. Furthermore, regulations come from what market innovates. An imperfect analogy on why regulations don't always bring best results: having side mirrors is incredibly important safety regulation. That is of course until you can introduce better safety by not having them, but regulation prevents you from doing so (cameras)
If a car costs $1,000 less but would catch fire in an instant when turned on its roof, people would opt for the money, I guarantee you that, because when was the last time you car was upside down?
From 2000 to 2010 Toyota used cheap materials in their cars that made cars accelerate and crash. It's estimated that 89 people died due to this in the US alone.
Your blind believe in "the market" is simply wrong. Without regulatory oversight, this might never have come to light and you would still see Toyotas running into barriers or Fords burning after an accident. Just you wouldn't actually know about it because it's relatively rare.
Yes, we do. The recommendation for car to have easily-deformable zone in the front was based on thousands of crash-tests. Musk might be your superhero, but he still cannot bypass basic laws of physics.
edit: thanks for the replies. I somehow thought if you get hit as a pedestrian it's super bad anyways... didn't know the crumple zone does much for you there.
it is generally very bad for the person who gets hit by the car
In a situation where maybe both would have survived otherwise, now at least one party is goo.
It's a Prisoner's Dilemma. If everyone drives fat, rigid SUVs, I gotta do to. That's why there is a law
Ncap includes these tests and it seems they're more interested in flexibility in that case, not in crumbling.
A crumple zone in an EV is pretty simple though, since you don't have to worry about the heavy engine getting shoved into the front passengers.
I'm not sure why it's such a popular notion that the cybertruck won't crumple? It's literally got a big empty space at the front as a feature.
Ordinary cars crumple but they don't fall apart if you lean on them or drive down a bumpy road. They have strength in some situations and specially designed failure modes in others.
It could be as simple as putting some scores in the metal so that it folds in a particular way when sufficient force is applied.
Because it's supposed to be bulletproof and have a virtually indestructible surface which you cannot dent or scratch. It's possible that this was meant as nothing more than resistance to minor assault but taking the statement literally and assuming a completely rigid reinforced frame makes a lot of sense.
> Ordinary cars crumple but they don't fall apart if you lean on them or drive down a bumpy road.
Ordinary cars are not billed as bulletproof and virtually indestructible.
Different properties. Bulletproof vests are flexible and distribute the force rather than being just hard and heavy for example. Diamonds are scratch resistant, but shatter.
Until we see the actual tests, it's all just speculation with minimal information. Resisting a hammer does not prove anything about collisions.
Yes it is.
Crumple zones are designed to both avoid going straight through through whatever they hit (which is usually an other car, though avoiding pasting pedestrian is also a good idea if you can), and disperse the energy of the collision to provide progressive deceleration.
Rigid frames are the original state of cars design, and it was bad, because when the car does not absorb the impact and progressively decelerate (again thanks to crumple zones) all the force of the crash ends up with the vehicle's occupants. Which is the exact opposite of what you're looking for: you want to sacrifice what's outside the safety cell in order to limit or nullify damage inside the safety cell (companies are even working on "sledding" the survival cell and adding dedicated shock absorbers, especially in smaller city cars where there isn't much space for crumple zones to do their work)./
I don't know where you got this idea. Renault makes the Twizy and the ZOE, both small electric cars. BMW makes the i3.
The automotive press is traditionally very biased against electric vehicles, which might have contributed to this article.
The Renault Zoe is increasingly common here in the UK, the electric Fiat 500 has been around for a while now, VW have an extensive range, BMW have at least a couple I'm aware of. A significant number of the suggested cars in this list are made by European manufacturers
https://www.autoexpress.co.uk/best-cars/electric-cars/86169/...
Since virtually no one drives gigantic american-style pickups in EU, it makes no sense for Tesla to develop a separate alternative EU-regulation-compatible version based on totally different manufacturing design.
I think it's pretty dishonest that Tesla asks for deposits for Cybertruck over here, since I believe they don't plan to ever sell them to us.
And I'm saying that as a person who likes Tesla, Inc. very much.
Come to Romania. You'd be surprised.
There's a lot of loopholes they can use to get this approved, if they should need them.
Farmers and other people who work in land industries use them all over the world. Have you been out of a city much? What do you think they use instead? The brands just tend to be Japanese outside the US.
>According to a TUV expert
for anyone reading this outside Germany, thats a Technical Inspection Association. pretty vague as to what it does in the 21st century pertaining to vehicles specifically though...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technischer_%C3%9Cberwachungsv...
>because the inmates were not safe.
the nearly unilaterally agreed upon english definition for an inmate is not the same as passenger.
>sees black
in english, seeing black is a finance colloquialism at best. at worst, its a pejorative for racist tendencies. im guessing its a different sentiment in Germany entirely.
>Nothing is deformed in the event of an impact, instead enormous forces act on the occupants," says Teller in the "Automobilwoche". "Airbags will no longer help."
This is wildly speculative conjecture based on a single marketing event. No technical authority would ever dream of basing their evaluation on it...unless you wanted to get your name in the press alongside a hot new vehicle.
The concept we're trying to get at here is called a crumple zone. Tesla S, tesla 3, and virtually every other mass produced vehicle on the planet have them as part of a standard safety requirement. There is no reason to propose teslas new truck would not include them.
The article also completely ignores the long standing tradition of safety approval for bullet-proof vehicles. Mercedes G500 and BMW 7 series fitted with rigid armour plating and bulletproof glass are all approved for use in the EU and US. As for unibody vs body on frame construction, youre wrong. body on frame vehicles cannot BY DESIGN have crumple zones to protect pedestrians, and often score lower on crash tests as a result. https://autoreviewhub.com/unibody-vs-body-on-frame/
Are you a native speaker? I've never heard 'seeing black' said in a racial sense. It is however colloquially used (in the UK at least).
I think it's also an idiom in German (my wife, a German, uses it often). Also not in a racist sense - also simply meaning, to 'see nothing good about' something.
Eg: a company might "hope to see black by then end of Q3."
So the headline baffled me.
Also the English term for this type of reporting is “clickbait”.
In fact, I'm willing to bet they thought about it a hell of a lot more than people speculating who were not involved in the design process.
let's wait and see what happens, rather than through out wild speculation. (but then, the internet would be pointless I guess)
EDIT: See my reply further down with links to all the safety records Tesla have set.
Also, my point still stands. It's almost a certainty Tesla have spent many millions of dollars and thousands and thousands of design hours on the safety of the Cybertruck, while literally everyone commenting on it (including this expert from Europe) has spent zero.
Its rather obvious that a car that has a rigid metal structure does not allow many avenues to channel the force of impact - so woe the pedestrian that's hit by a Cybertruck.
No way European regulators - which actually certify and regulate rather than rubber-stamp manufacturers' own views - can let it go through in its current shape and form.
Obviously he knows what he's talking about when it comes to safety and vehicles. I think it's safe to say he knows very, very little about the Cybertruck yet.
This is 100% pure speculation, like almost everything about the Cybertruck on the internet so far.
What's your evidence for this extraordinary claim?
IIHS rates the model S as acceptable to good, the model 3 rates good across the board and is a top pick alongside dozens of others, and with six vehicles above it for year 2019. IIHS CRO stated unambiguously:
> I don’t think that our results bear out that it’s the safest car ever
Going with EuroNCAP instead and looking at just 2019 large family car[0] the model 3 does stand out in "safety assistance", it's on par for occupants and non-occupants, and widely beaten by the BMW Series 3 in that latter category.
[0] https://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/latest-safety-ra...
GP's claim is not that they're very good, or even exceptional, it's that
> Tesla have designed and currently sell the three safest vehicles ever produced in the history of the world
The only place this sort of shit comes from is Tesla's marketing copies, which is the same singularly dishonest place that brought us "autopilot" for glorified driving assistance.
https://www.tesla.com/blog/model-3-lowest-probability-injury...
Model X first and only SUV to get 5 starts from the Euro NCAP:
https://www.tesla.com/blog/model-x-earns-5-star-safety-ratin...
Model X first SUV to get get 5 stars in every category from NHSTA:
https://www.tesla.com/blog/tesla-model-x-5-star-safety-ratin...
Model S best safety rating of any car ever tested:
https://www.tesla.com/blog/tesla-model-s-achieves-best-safet...
Quote from Euro N-Cap themselves: "The stand-out performer of this round is undoubtedly Tesla’s Model X, scoring 94 percent for Safety Assist, the same as the Model 3 scored early this year. This makes the two Teslas the best performers in this part of the assessment against Euro NCAP’s most recent protocols"
https://www.euroncap.com/en/press-media/press-releases/best-...
I could keep Googling... I'm sure there's an award they got for one of the vehicles being the first ever to get 5 stars in North America AND Europe. I think it was the X or the S.
It's not even the only SUV to get 5 stars from 2019: https://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/latest-safety-ra...
You managed to out-shill tesla's own marketing copy, your link merely states that it got 5 stars from NCAP and outlines points they think are of interest. At no point do they state it's the "first and only SUV" to get 5 stars from either NCAP or NHTSA (they do state it's the first and only SUV to get 5 stars in every single category and sub-category which is an impressive claim but much less so than your statement).
> Quote from Euro N-Cap themselves: "The stand-out performer of this round is undoubtedly Tesla’s Model X, scoring 94 percent for Safety Assist, the same as the Model 3 scored early this year. This makes the two Teslas the best performers in this part of the assessment against Euro NCAP’s most recent protocols"
I don't know if you can't read the quote you provide or you don't remember your original statement: this praises safety assistance, it doesn't say that it's "the […] safest vehicles ever produced in the history of the world".
> I could keep Googling…
Yes I'm sure you could keep shilling, and, frankly, lying.
I don't even understand why you keep doing that, Tesla absolutely does get impressive results and are at the top of the pack, had that been your assertion that would've ben fine, and would have supported your point (regardless of your point being somewhat off from the article's explicit concerns about pedestrian safety on which Tesla scores are generally good but in the low 70s where other cars manage 80s and even the rare low 90s for the Z4[0] and the CLA[1]).
[0] https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/bmw/z4/38091
[1] https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/mercedes-benz/cla-class/...
If it's the first and only SUV to get 5 stars in every single category and sub-category.... doesn't that make it the safest ever, by ver definition?
If not, why not?
Also it's odd you use the word "claim". There are no "claims" here, there are factual safety ratings by independent government bodies. The NHTSA is not "claiming" it gets 5 starts in every category and sub-category, they are factually stating that it does. It sounds like you're trying to use language to make facts seen less like facts and more like opinions. Please don't do that, it's very dishonest.
Ah I see we've gotten to the "moving the goalposts" part of your refusal to ever acknowledge your lies.
> Also it's odd you use the word "claim".
I fail to see how, though not being a native speaker I'm sure there are better synonyms available.
> The NHTSA is not "claiming" it gets 5 starts in every category and sub-category, they are factually stating that it does.
The subject of the phrase is Tesla not NHTSA. NHTSA gave Tesla the score, Tesla states the score they got, it's a claim.
> It sounds like you're trying to use language to make facts seen less like facts and more like opinions. Please don't do that, it's very dishonest.
I guess we can tack on a complete lack of honour to your repeatedly established lack of honesty, and with that I'm done with this "discussion".
Nobody can plausibly claim that Teslas aren't incredibly safe cars, but "Safest on the planet" is not substantiated, and in particular the exact point under discussion here is pedestrian safety, and the ratings substantiate the claim that this is not one of the areas in which Tesla has a lead. https://www.euroncap.com/en/ratings-rewards/latest-safety-ra...
I've never seen anything to suggest that Tesla cars are the safest available. They generally appear in the top group on rankings but I've not seen any where they actually had the top spots.
Maybe you could point me to some?
A security risk?
Do an image search for "svbied".
It must have been flagged or triggered something.
The key to safety is human error prevention, not materials. It’s like preventing illness vs. treating the symptoms.
On the other side, It’s very questionable when the fully-autonomous driving will be ready.
Given the fact that the rest of Teslas fleet has excellent ratings in that regard Ì‘m quite sure that this concept is not exactly new for their engineers.
I‘m again not impressed by TÜV.