The Tesla S just broke the NHTSA safety test record for production cars:
http://www.wired.com/autopia/2013/08/tesla-model-s-crash-test/
And as TV ads for just about everything with four wheels show us, safety is the only thing about a vehicle most people care about, to the point that nothing else is worth mentioning 
It weighs 4637 pounds. http://www.teslamotors.com/models/specs Rollover roof crush rating off the charts.
The CTS-V wagon weighs 4425 pounds. http://www.cadillac.com/cts-v-luxury-wagon/features-specs/dimensions.html Rollover roof crush rating 'Good'.
The manufacturers need to quit pretending they can't build in a reasonable cabin integrated roll cage. Obviously Tesla can do it.
http://www.iihs.org/ratings/roof/detailsbyclass.aspx?10
Curmudgeon wrote: It weighs 4637 pounds. http://www.teslamotors.com/models/specs Rollover roof crush rating off the charts. The CTS-V wagon weighs 4425 pounds. http://www.cadillac.com/cts-v-luxury-wagon/features-specs/dimensions.html Rollover roof crush rating 'Good'. The manufacturers need to quit pretending they can't build in a reasonable cabin integrated roll cage. Obviously Tesla can do it. http://www.iihs.org/ratings/roof/detailsbyclass.aspx?10
How much does the Tesla cost? How much does the CTS-V cost? I think we know why.
yes, they are going to cry that it will cost another 100 dollars or something per car that nobody will want to pay for
Bobzilla wrote:Curmudgeon wrote: It weighs 4637 pounds. http://www.teslamotors.com/models/specs Rollover roof crush rating off the charts. The CTS-V wagon weighs 4425 pounds. http://www.cadillac.com/cts-v-luxury-wagon/features-specs/dimensions.html Rollover roof crush rating 'Good'. The manufacturers need to quit pretending they can't build in a reasonable cabin integrated roll cage. Obviously Tesla can do it. http://www.iihs.org/ratings/roof/detailsbyclass.aspx?10How much does the Tesla cost? How much does the CTS-V cost? I think we know why.
Tesla ModelS base price 63k. CTS-V wagon, sedan, OR coupe- base price 64k. Guaranteed GM has more dollars for research than Elon Musk does. So.....
The CTS has a base price for 2013 of $38,500. I'm sure GM is budgeting for the lowest common denominator (V6 rental grade sedan) rather than the model with the supercharged engine.
I didn't know you could buy a Tesla for under $90k. I learned something new.
So are we berating the big automakers for not making their cars have more safety nannies and weigh more due to additional crash structure now? One reason the Tesla scores so well is the distance between the occupants and the impact points due to it's not so tiny size. Are we wanting the cars to get bigger too?
I did not find the Tesla S to be any larger than any other 4 door. It scores well in front and rear crush because there is no engine/drivetrain in the way. It can be stuffed full of impact mitigating materials instead of several hundred pounds of boiling hot engine and transmission
nocones wrote: So are we berating the big automakers for not making their cars have more safety nannies and weigh more due to additional crash structure now? One reason the Tesla scores so well is the distance between the occupants and the impact points due to it's not so tiny size. Are we wanting the cars to get bigger too?
It's the desire to complain about stuff and having the required tools to do so.
Nothing more.
I wouldn't call it little. It's nearly 6" wider and 7" longer than a New Subaru outback a car universally panned by GRM message boarders as being similar in size to a House. Compared to the CTS it's 5" wider and 5" longer.
You are correct however that the crumple zone can be larger due to no engine in the front.
4600 pounds?
Wat.
When the Tesla can do this I'll pay more attention:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPzna3p3P5s
402 hp, 306 lb-ft of torque (I think that is the standard model) Of course it will only do that between 0-7000 rpm. 
Did you know the car has a 48/52 weight distribution? Interesting they went with a rear weight bias. I am guessing they could pretty much make it whatever then wanted since the location of some items is not critical.
Another interesting aspect, a 9.73:1 rear end.
Bobzilla wrote: When the Tesla can do this I'll pay more attention:
You've obviously never driven one. 
In reply to aircooled:
It's rear engined. Why would a rear bias be surprising?
Neighbor just bought one bringing the total to three in my area so that’s 918 Ft Lbs of no oil drip torquie goodness.
Hey, I'm not complaining, I think it's cool. Just seems like most performance cars tend towards an even or slight forward bias (you know, because people can't handle oversteer). Of course with all the electronics that are likely on it, I am sure the car can deal with any tendencies.
Perhaps its setup slightly unstable to improve agility, and let the computer deal with any issues, kind of like an F-16.
With the massive weight of the batteries I am sure they could have set the bias in a pretty wide range. Heck, they probably could have set it up to be adjustable (move some packs around).
beans wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPzna3p3P5s
Was there ever any doubt?
BTW: every time I see an S model from a distance I think "Is that a Porsche Panamera? Can't be, its not bigger than a whale, and it looks good!"
.
Tesla will never top the charts because hair metal is a niche.
Curmudgeon wrote: It weighs 4637 pounds. http://www.teslamotors.com/models/specs Rollover roof crush rating off the charts. The CTS-V wagon weighs 4425 pounds. http://www.cadillac.com/cts-v-luxury-wagon/features-specs/dimensions.html Rollover roof crush rating 'Good'. The manufacturers need to quit pretending they can't build in a reasonable cabin integrated roll cage. Obviously Tesla can do it. http://www.iihs.org/ratings/roof/detailsbyclass.aspx?10
"good" is the best rating the IIHS gives out.
nocones wrote: So are we berating the big automakers for not making their cars have more safety nannies and weigh more due to additional crash structure now? One reason the Tesla scores so well is the distance between the occupants and the impact points due to it's not so tiny size. Are we wanting the cars to get bigger too?
When you figure the weight of the battery packs it's no wonder the Tesla weighs more. My point is that, as another poster noted, if a niche manufacturer like Tesla can build a car with a no-E36 M3 rollover structure incorporated then why can't GM or Ford or ??? Their reasons just evaporated.
I'm not a fan of airbags being marketed as the illusion of safety when the supporting structure of the vehicle containing them has much more to do with survivability.
DaveEstey wrote:Curmudgeon wrote: It weighs 4637 pounds. http://www.teslamotors.com/models/specs Rollover roof crush rating off the charts. The CTS-V wagon weighs 4425 pounds. http://www.cadillac.com/cts-v-luxury-wagon/features-specs/dimensions.html Rollover roof crush rating 'Good'. The manufacturers need to quit pretending they can't build in a reasonable cabin integrated roll cage. Obviously Tesla can do it. http://www.iihs.org/ratings/roof/detailsbyclass.aspx?10"good" is the best rating the IIHS gives out.
True. But the Tesla BROKE THE TEST EQUIPMENT without failing. The others' roof structures failed at some point in the testing That's what I'm getting at.
"And Tesla adds in its announcement that during a previous roof crush test used during validation, the machine failed while applying more than 4 G’s of pressure"
I'm in marketing. That's marketing speak. Take it with a cup of salt.
You'll need to log in to post.
