Tesla Model 3 Achieves NHTSA's 'Lowest Probability' of Injury Ever (thedrive.com) 316
In a blog post on Monday, Tesla said that the Model 3 has been deemed to have the lowest probability of occupant injury than any vehicle ever tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The Drive reports: Since 1979, the regulatory body has implemented the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) which, through a series of tests, ultimately produces a rating for a new-to-market vehicle based on how well it performs in a variety of safety-related tests. Over time the test has evolved to assess the injury to occupants based on data gathered for front, side, and rollover crashes. During the NHTSA's previous tests of Tesla vehicles, the Model S and Model X, respectively, became the two vehicles with the lowest probability for injury, outpacing all other automakers. The Model 3 has now widened that gap as it takes the new number-one position on the leaderboard for the safest overall vehicle for occupants.
The California-based auto manufacturer acknowledges the car's low center of gravity as a major factor in its gracious performance in rollover tests. Similar to The Model 3 places its heaviest component, the battery pack, into the floor, so this helps improve the overall stability and rigidity of the car, making it perform excellently in rollover crashes. Additionally, the automaker gives a subtle nod to its engineering team for their design of the vehicle's crumple zones. Working in conjunction with airbags placed in the front of the vehicle and at the occupant's knees, the Model 3 was able to safely control the deceleration of passengers in frontal crash tests. The NHTSA's assessment involved the Model 3 Long Range Rear-Wheel Drive variant, however, Tesla states that it believes other trims will receive similar results when tested.
The California-based auto manufacturer acknowledges the car's low center of gravity as a major factor in its gracious performance in rollover tests. Similar to The Model 3 places its heaviest component, the battery pack, into the floor, so this helps improve the overall stability and rigidity of the car, making it perform excellently in rollover crashes. Additionally, the automaker gives a subtle nod to its engineering team for their design of the vehicle's crumple zones. Working in conjunction with airbags placed in the front of the vehicle and at the occupant's knees, the Model 3 was able to safely control the deceleration of passengers in frontal crash tests. The NHTSA's assessment involved the Model 3 Long Range Rear-Wheel Drive variant, however, Tesla states that it believes other trims will receive similar results when tested.
Shorters (Score:2, Troll)
Keep shorting that stock, guys. We love watching you do it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Shorters (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or Was He???
Stephen King: still not dead (Score:2)
the purpose is to discredit ALL news, so people don't pay attention to actual facts.
https://stephenking.com/ [stephenking.com]
Re:Shorters (Score:5, Insightful)
No. Tesla lives and dies off its fundamentals. And those fundamentals are the 4th highest selling car in the US by volume, highest by revenue, highest selling car (by volume and revenue) by a US manufacturer, overwhelmingly positive reviews, top notch safety, and margin expected to be already up to about 15% (and growing) this quarter, production rates growing faster than Panasonic can keep up with cells, with ample reservations (Tesla hasn't even opened sales to most of its global market), SR not being available yet, non-PUP not being available yet, air suspension not being available yet, tow package not available yet, leases (how most people acquire cars) not available yet, only one model year old (most people prefer to wait for at least 2-3 years old) and surrounded by FUD, sparse store network, no advertising budget, and about a dozen things.
Tesla's fundamentals are rocking.
There's this common notion that Tesla has a "Musk premium". Quick question: whenever you hear TSLA bulls talking about Tesla, are they predominantly talking about how awesome Musk is? No, of course not; they're talking about how awesome the company and its products are. Tesla's value is as high as it is because TSLA bulls love its fundamentals, and these fundamentals exist with or without Musk. Contrary to this popular belief, Musk is generally a drain on Tesla's stock price, because he's such a polarizing figure who's always saying polarizing things. We like having him at the helm because we like his aggressive moat-bridging strategies, but he is not a boost to the stock price. Wall Street would love it if he packed his bags and moved to Mars and left JB in charge of the company (yes, there would be a short term freakout, as always happens when there's change and uncertainty, but then the story would go back to the fundamentals - without the distractions of random tweets)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I just... WOW. Tesla trades on its fundamentals? Are you kidding me? Its cash flow negative, has a sky high PE, and has a huge load of convertible debt maturing that isn't going to reach its conversion price, resulting in either the issuance of more stock, or rolling over of the debt (in a rising rate environment, not a great plan). You don't even understand what "fundamentals" means. Tesla trades on many things, but its fundamentals is unequivocally not one of them.
Re: (Score:2)
I just... WOW
I've seen far more relevant responses to getting ones ass handed to them but that's the great thing about being a dumbass anonymous shill, eh? ;)
Re:Shorters (Score:5, Insightful)
Musk has broken YOUR ideas of "fundamentals". However, your idea is based on short-term profits.
Musk, and Rei's, along with others such as myself, is based on GROWTH and getting the company to be able to add a factory and have its lines up to maximum production in under 6 months. M3, like MS/MX, has relatively low production costs (compared to other companies), and all of the money is going into R&D (hignest % in the industry; most are around 3-5%; Tesla is something like 20%) as well as building out a massive EV charging system (way ahead of anything else). However, yes, if has been failing your GAAP for short-term profits. But, I will guess that the bleeding stops by end of year.
So, yeah, Rei is right that Musk has the fundamentals down. Oddly, prior to 1980, Musk would be held in the highest accolades in America. Now, we have nothing but multiple monopolistic companies, a bought political party (the GOP), and a large number of trolls that run around denigrating the man and his companies.
Re:Shorters (Score:5, Interesting)
The big worry, as GP pointed out, is Tesla's current debt structure and cash flow. Not necessarily an issue if your stockholders have an unwavering trust in the company and the way it's being run, but Musk seems to be doing everything in his power to shake that trust.
Re: (Score:2)
While true, their number is rapidly growing as East Asia gains affluence.
Re: Shorters (Score:4, Interesting)
You think only 700,000 people can afford a $40,000 vehicle?
Well you're obviously retarded.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Shorters (Score:2)
Re: Shorters (Score:5, Insightful)
Another person out of touch with reality. What Tesla is $40k?
The Model 3. But we've already established that you're a liar, so I don't expect you to acknowledge that fact. No, in your world every Tesla costs 50 bazillion dollars.
You guys need to get out an travel and see the world. The vast majority of the planet lives in poverty.
I'm actually posting from a third world country at the moment.
You guys sit in your office jobs and think everyone can just go out and buy a $65,000+ car
Nah, we just aren't retarded enough to believe that only 700,000 people can afford to do so.
Re: Shorters (Score:4, Informative)
The Model 3 is not $40k. You are simply ignorant.
Corect, the base Model 3 is actually $35,000 but I was trying to be generous to you.
Tell me more about how only 700,000 people "in teh whole wide worlds!" can afford to buy one, oh wise and completely unignorant retard! I'm sure that the 1,200,000 Americans who made over $500,000 last year would get a great laugh out of that one.
Re: Shorters (Score:5, Insightful)
Good thing random slashdot user is here to tell acura, lexus, bmw, audi, mercedes, land rover, aston martin, jaguar, lincoln, infiniti, porsche, ferrari, bugati, etc etc that the market for cars north of 35k USD is a losing proposition. He might just save the whole industry!
Re: Shorters (Score:3, Insightful)
Nobody; the rich customers are snapping up all of them with extra features, at a premium. The fact that Tesla is unable to make enough vehicles to meet demand is a completely separate thing from how many people can afford the base model.
Re: (Score:2)
Why sell a car for $40k with less margin when you can't even fill the orders you have at $60k?
Seems like reasonable business to me.
Re: (Score:2)
"You guys are so out of touch with reality. The fact is only 0.001% of the people on this planet can even afford at Tesla."
At many times throughout the past century the same could have been said of cars in general yet there are ~2 billion today - and STILL plenty of people "out of you affluent areas" who can't afford ANY car.
Re: (Score:2)
Even with those numbers pulled straight from your transverse colon, that's still around 8,000,000 cars; or 24x as many as Tesla has shipped in it's entire existence, even without the standard range Model 3 that costs ~30% less.
How does that mean that they're running out of customers again?
Re: (Score:2)
America is 5% of the world's population. In fact, the entire western nations, alone, is more than 1/6 of the world population. Just in western nations, There are some 1.5 trillion with an median salary of ~$40K. That means that 1/3 of these could easily afford these (and with prices going down, many more will). So, yes, there is an easy 500 million that can afford the premium M3. Once the base M3 starts, then we are up to an easy 3/4T. And none of that includes the fact that Tesla will start $25K veh
Re:Shorters (Score:5, Insightful)
Tesla is eventually going to run out of rich people to sell their vanity EV to.
Sure, just like Apple ran out of people to sell their vanity phones and laptops to!
Re: (Score:3)
Apple's hitting a limit because they put the price up every time.
Tesla is the opposite. Each generation of Teslas is cheaper than before.
Re: Shorters (Score:5, Informative)
You must be joking. Every Tesla generation is CHEAPER? Only the rich can afford a Tesla you dunce
Does that mean every generation of Tesla isn't cheaper? You lost me with your amazing logic.
Tesla Roadster: From $112,000
Tesla Model S: From $74,500
Tesla Model X: From $79,500
Tesla Model 3: From $49,000
Damn those pesky facts!
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no.
Where does it say that?
Re: (Score:2)
That is a common malady here on Slashdot. People here live in a bubble. They think there is a huge market for $65,000+ cars,
Right now there's certainly more demand that Tesla can fill, so... moot.
Re: (Score:3)
"They think there is a huge market for $65,000+ cars, and $1,000+ phones. Eventually you run out of people to sell shiny things to. And it ain't doing nothing for the environment. Just high-end consumerism to fulfill their pathetic lives."
The trickle-down from expensive phones brought instant telecommunications to billions who mostly still don't have electricity and the demand for solar panels from those high-end consumerists brought the price down enough that many of those same people living outside the bu
Re: (Score:2)
You should probably inform Acura, Infiniti, Audi, BMW, Lexus, and Mercedes that their market is about to dry up then.
Why is this only a problem for Tesla, again? Is it just because you're a hater and can't see actual market statistics?
There actually is a pretty big market for $65k cars, which is why there are plenty of options at that price point. If the market wasn't there, it wouldn't have so many people competing for it. It's just slightly possible that you are a massive idiot, and that all those com
Re:Shorters (Score:5, Insightful)
They've sold every single Model 3 coming out of the factory for a year and they haven't even covered the demand from two countries.
The premise of your statement is incorrect, as well as the statement itself being incorrect. Your premise states that one must be "rich" to buy a Tesla, yet it's the 3rd highest selling sedan in the US right now. Does that mean that everyone in the US that is buying a car is "rich"? Or are you playing the game where you say that they're all rich because you are comparing their income in a post-industrial nation with a pre-industrial economy in a nation locked in civil war for 20 years 6,000 miles away?
Second, if they were "running out of rich people" in North America, they'd start loading cars onto boats destined for Europe. Or Asia. Which they aren't doing. Are you saying there aren't rich people in Europe and Asia, and that somehow all the rich people are in the US and Canada? Or that there aren't any boats available? Or that they can't figure out how to drive the trucks carrying them to a dock?
I know your thing is to troll people, but you really can do better than that.
Re: (Score:3)
The stock has collapsed lately. Is it because the "fundamentals" have changed somehow?
If you need that question answered you should re-read the post you're referring to.
Tesla is eventually going to run out of rich people to sell their vanity EV to.
And when they do, an EV that is smack bang in the middle of the average new car sales price is there to take the company the next steps. Not that they have a shortage of "rich" (reads middle class) people.
Re: Shorters (Score:2)
P/E isn't super relevant to growth startups, which is what TSLA clearly is.
Re: (Score:2)
No. Tesla lives and dies off its fundamentals. And those fundamentals are the 4th highest selling car in the US by volume, highest by revenue, highest selling car (by volume and revenue) by a US manufacture
None of this makes any sense. Where did you get this nonsense from?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
In Q1 2018, Tesla was only able to make 750 per week, 2200/wk by end of Q2 and now have cracked 4k/week for a total of 91k Model 3s to date in 2018.
If they produce a steady 5k/wk to the end of the year, that'll be 157000 total which should land them about 25th place.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No one gives a shit if your car is 0.3% safer than a Toyota when the Camry costs 30 grand less.
Really?
You haven't been paying attention.
PS: It's not just safety, Teslas excel in almost every other way. They're fast becoming the 'Apple' of the auto industry - nobody thinks Apple are good value for money but Apple is now the biggest company on the planet thanks to selling "overpriced" goods.
Does it measure driver attentiveness? (Score:5, Interesting)
Having many controls that would be buttons in most cars on the touch screen is going to be a distraction for drivers. Even stuff like the headlight controls and windscreen wiper settings are on the screen, meaning you have to glance aside and hit a touch target with no tactile feedback.
What do the accident stats say? Do we have per-model data on at-fault crashes?
Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? (Score:5, Insightful)
Turning on and off the headlights manually? Lol. And where's the handcrank for the engine too, right? ;) At least autowipers aren't perfect and occasionally people want to override them (in the Model 3, single swipes and cleaning can be done with the left stalk, this also and automatically brings up the general wiper control menu just to the side of your right hand). But why do you think everyone should be turning their headlights on and off by hand?
I don't get this desire for "busywork" when driving. Another busywork example I don't get: having to "start" the car. If the car has already authenticated you, why make the driver go through an added step of pressing a button or whatnot?
As for "glancing aside", a quick test for you. Put your hands on your keyboard. Keep your focus straight ahead, not at the keyboard. Now lift your hands up so that your hands have to actually move to touch a key (go with, say, 2 finger lengths away). Now - still without looking at the keyboard - picture half a dozen random letters and try to type them, with your hands returning fully to that elevated position each time. How well did that go? If you're like a normal human being, the answer is "very poorly". You probably had better success with larger buttons (space, enter), but not with smaller ones. Now put your hands back down in a normal typing resting position (aka, touching the same solid surface as the keyboard) and try again. Trivial to type without looking, right?
The simple fact is, we can control things in immediate reach of our hands from a fixed reference frame without looking, but when it comes to trying to control "button sized things" that we have to move our hands to reach, it's far harder. Which is why we look. You may believe that you do it without looking in your car, but for most tasks, you don't - start paying attention to yourself when you drive. You look because it's much faster and more accurate to do so.
Another test. Picture an area about 2 1/2 centimeters / 1 inch square somewhere on the edge of your screen (it helps to have a fullscreen graphic up). Let's even forget about keeping your hands two finger lengths away! Look somewhat the side of your screen so that portion of your screen is in your peripheral. Now try to press that point on the screen. Do this several times. You probably did better than you expected to - simply because that's such a large virtual "button" you were trying to press. Give yourself even a brief glance at your screen and your accuracy will be almost perfect (again, due to button size). However, trying to hit "buttons" toward the centre of the screen, you'll find you have much worse accuracy than on the edges. If you were being bounced around, the centre would be all the worse, even with such a large button size.
So what's the strategic takeaway from this, in terms of keeping people's attention on the road?
1) Automate everything you can, so that there's no need to fiddle in the first place.
2) Tie all settings you can into driver profiles, so there's no need for basic adjustments, only the things that vary on a ride.
3) Put all frequent interactions on the steering wheel. Change track, change station, change volume, mute, pause, change cruise control speed, change follow distance, voice commands, etc.
4) Put all "semi-frequent" interactions as close to the wheel as possible, as close to something your hands can physically touch as possible, with as large of a button as possible. Example: against the left or bottom edges of a screen (screen edge acts as a guideline for your hand), with buttons 2 1/2 centimeters / 1 inch square, so that they're very difficult to actually miss.
5) Put infrequently used / only used when stopped functionality in menus. Make any displays as large as possible so "always on" things such as nav or cameras can be seen easily in your peripheral and so that they're easy to interact with.
This is, in a nutshell, Tesla's design philosophy.
As for Tes
Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? (Score:5, Interesting)
Removing responsibility for driving functions comes with the cost of lost freedom of the driving functions. You are now at the mercy of those who decided how things should function, rather than your own choices.
It doesn't even matter if the automatic choices are statistically better (e.g., lower crash rates, more efficient driving, etc.); they still impose a loss of freedom.
Which is better - safer but less free, or more free but less safe? I suppose society at large will make an aggregate decision there, but I'm guessing it will be an emergent choice rather than an informed one.
As an aside - those crash statistics aren't really comparable because there is inherent selection bias among the drivers. The driver population of Teslas is likely to be a lower-risk population than other vehicles in the first place. You also have to factor in that you're comparing a small number of vehicle models against all other vehicle models. What happens if you compare against other brands individually? Try this report [freep.com] for instance - there are 9 non-Teslas out there with zero deaths per million passenger miles (and several others with more than 100!). Interestingly it is "economy" cars that have higher rates than expensive cars - which supports my theory that the demographic is likely an important factor, not just the vehicle.
Re: (Score:2)
" You are now at the mercy of those who decided how things should function, rather than your own choices."
Sounds like a certain company with a fruity name. Sadly, large numbers of people are obviously willing to accept that kind of hand holding.
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a certain company with a fruity name. Sadly, large numbers of people are obviously willing to accept that kind of hand holding.
There's nothing sad about it, for people who aren't computer geeks. Their goal is not to experience computers in all their glorious manifold permutations; they are using computers only as a means to an end. Because of that, they don't want "freedom", they want "something that just works without any hassle" so that they can spend their time completing the tasks they want to complete, and not on managing and troubleshooting a computer's settings.
For people who are computer geeks and want direct control over
Auto headlights better by any measure (Score:2)
Which is better - safer but less free, or more free but less safe?
But you always have freedom for the cases you might need it, the controls are just slightly less convenient to get to.
In the general sense that sounds great to have more freedom.
In practical use automatic headlights are vastly better. I have automatic headlights on my car on an easily accessed switch where I could turn them on/off manually if I wanted - but I just leave the selector in Auto.
Why would I not? Headlights are better at all time
Re: (Score:2)
Removing responsibility for driving functions comes with the cost of lost freedom of the driving functions. You are now at the mercy of those who decided how things should function, rather than your own choices.
You are driving a car, presumably on public roads. Your freedom is already severely curtailed:
- You cannot drive on any side of the road you wish
- You must stop when instructed to by lights
- You must have a driving license
- You must be sober
- You must be at least a certain age
- You must wear a seatbelt
- Your car must meet certain emissions requirements (when buying new of course)
The loss of freedom that Tesla imposes when you buy from them is tiny, inc
Re: (Score:2)
Interestingly it is "economy" cars that have higher rates than expensive cars - which supports my theory that the demographic is likely an important factor, not just the vehicle.
I've noticed this, too, but I think you've got it kind of backwards. I think many crashes are caused by simple poor judgment skills (which also covers things like DUI, phone use, etc.), and those (lack of) skills define the demographic, not the other way around. IOW, if you have poor judgement, you're less likely to be able to hold a better job, and thus likely to have to drive a cheaper car. I suspect this is the main reason insurance companies like to do credit checks.
Re: (Score:2)
The driver population of Teslas is likely to be a lower-risk population than other vehicles in the first place.
I disagree. Perhaps you're imagining that people will take better care of a new car, or that people with money are safer drivers, but I see new and expensive cars being driven like crap every time I go out. I don't know if the people who can afford them are elderly and sufficiently past their prime that they can no longer drive correctly, or just entitled and they figure their money can solve any problems they might have by driving like entitled douchenozzles, but I encounter this regularly. Out of the plac
Re: (Score:2)
The driver population of Teslas is likely to be a lower-risk population than other vehicles in the first place. You also have to factor in that you're comparing a small number of vehicle models against all other vehicle models. What happens if you compare against other brands individually? Try this report [freep.com] for instance - there are 9 non-Teslas out there with zero deaths per million passenger miles (and several others with more than 100!). Interestingly it is "economy" cars that have higher rates than expensive cars - which supports my theory that the demographic is likely an important factor, not just the vehicle.
That's an interesting link, but I can't help thinking that 0 is a very misleading number to use there, particularly because this isn't deaths per million passenger miles, it's deaths per million registered vehicle years. And consider the methodology:
"Although the latest numbers reflect 2011 models, the study included data from earlier-model year vehicles as far back as 2008 if the vehicles weren't substantially redesigned before 2011. Including older, equivalent vehicles increases the exposure and thus the
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't get this desire for "busywork" when driving. Another busywork example I don't get: having to "start" the car. If the car has already authenticated you, why make the driver go through an added step of pressing a button or whatnot?
In case you bump the acceleration pedal by mistake by turning around to reach the childrens who are already fighting about their Nintendo 3DS again?
Re: (Score:2)
You have to shift into gear either way.
Re: (Score:2)
What does that have to do with starting the car or turning on the headlights manually?
PS: If you want to fix the kids it's much better to have an autopilot setting to keep the car steady while you do it.
Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? (Score:5, Informative)
Turning on and off the headlights manually?
The auto lights aren't perfect, on any car. It's not just a simple on/off with light level detection, it's the high/dipped beams.
I don't get this desire for "busywork" when driving. Another busywork example I don't get: having to "start" the car. If the car has already authenticated you, why make the driver go through an added step of pressing a button or whatnot?
Well in Tesla's case it's because the door locks are not very secure so they had to add a PIN to start the car as a second layer of defence. The less snarky answer is so that you can sit in the driver's seat with no possibility of accidentally moving the car due to stuff like mode confusion.
As for "glancing aside", a quick test for you. ...
Trivial to type without looking, right?
Most keyboards have little ridges on the F and J keys so that you can locate your fingers correctly without looking, and then touch type. Similarly my car radio has a little nub on one of the channel favourite buttons. I never need to look at either.
But that's only half the problem with touch screens. With buttons you can locate them by feel, and they require a moderate amount of pressure to press down so you can run your fingers over them, use them for a bit of support as the car bounces around etc. Try operating your phone when it is held in a mount and you are in the passenger seat of a moving vehicle, it's not easy. You really need to cup the phone in your fingers to steady both your hand and the display and then carefully hit large touch points. Stuff like swiping is doubly hard. And the Model 3 touch screen is 15" diagonal so you all the touch points need to be near the edges to give you something to grip.
The same design constraints are evident in things like Android Auto.
Put all frequent interactions on the steering wheel. Change track, change station, change volume, mute, pause, change cruise control speed, change follow distance, voice commands, etc.
That's a pretty complex set of steering wheel controls. And what about climate control? Tesla doesn't even have an auto-demist function.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh man, high-beams is not a manual option? How the hell is that a thing? It sounds like they have auto-highbeam options that are not close to perfect either. Yeah, I very much need my manual controls for things like that.
Some discussion here on a Tesla forum:
https://forums.tesla.com/forum... [tesla.com]
Still, Tesla is doing so many things right. They are close!!!
Re: (Score:3)
Well hang on... this other discussion says you can do high/low beams with a "stalk" on the 3-series at least. This sounds pretty decent to me:
https://forums.tesla.com/forum... [tesla.com]
If you need to flash your lights a few times to warn oncoming cars of an emergency or hazard that you just passed by, you can do it... at least on the 3-series. It turns off the auto-beam option, but you can enable it again by pushing the stalk forward. That is unless another update has changed this feature, I gather.
Re: (Score:2)
The auto lights aren't perfect, on any car. It's not just a simple on/off with light level detection, it's the high/dipped beams.
On the Tesla that may be true, but most cars just have a simple on/off with light level detection, usually coming from the sun load sensor. It worked great on our 2000 Astro until it decided that the lights had to always be on, but at least it didn't decide they had to always be off. (The control always worked to turn them on manually, until that was no longer necessary.)
On the other hand, the combi switch on my '84 300SD died, and my lights ended up staying popped up and turned on until my battery died...
Re: (Score:3)
Not the Model 3. The problem only affects cars with key fobs, so the Model S and X.
Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the first "pro Tesla" bit you've written that I don't disagree with, so that's definitely saying something. Your conclusions reveal that you've spent a lot more time thinking about driving that actually doing so; if you were a "driver among drivers," you'd instinctively know that headlight controls (among other things) should never be relegated to the touch screen.
Re: (Score:2)
that I don't disagree with
Or the other way around...
Re: (Score:3)
I don't get this desire for "busywork" when driving.
Until driving is fully automated, we need "busywork".
We are generally pretty terrible at needing to be on standby to leap into action and prevent a crash, but not actually doing anything 99.99% of the time.
Re: (Score:2)
I partially agree with this. Not sure adjusting things is always the right kind of busywork, but yes until cars are 100% auto we need to be alert. Keeping your eyes moving on the road looking for other vehicles in every direction and looking for issues far ahead of you, etc. is something that will keep you out of wrecks. And I totally agree that if you are zoning out 99% of the time, that 1% of the time when you need to take control... it's not going to be pretty.
Re: (Score:2)
While I love Tesla's cars in a big big way, and considered getting one semi-recently... I still am not at all a fan of a screen that houses most basic controls. Headlights? I certainly use them manually every day, because my auto-headlights only come on at night or really dim conditions... and around here for making yourself visible to others you want your lights on any time you are driving except maybe around noontime because it is so bright outside other people won't notice you anyway. Maybe Tesla has an
Re: Does it measure driver attentiveness? (Score:2)
Manual control of headlights is an important communication tool. Every car I've driven built since the late 90s has had a lever on a spring to temporarily turn on the high beams.
I assume there's a way to handle this in the model 3, but if not it's a big problem.
Re: (Score:3)
Just like the Model 3.
Re: (Score:3)
You know you can look at quarterly reports [tesla.com], right? Tesla does have one of the highest gross margins in the industry, far higher than most automakers. Tesla's normally runs around 25%, although it was dragged down by Model 3 in Q4 '07 to (GAAP/non-GAAP) 18,9%/13,8%, rose in Q1 to 19,7%/18,8%, then again in Q2 to 20,6%/21%, and will be even higher in Q3 when we get the report. Ford, by contrast, has a gross margin of 8.64%.
Now, a fair criticism is that since Tesla bears the cost of running its stores (rathe
Re: (Score:2)
Part of the reason Tesla makes big profits off its customers is that they don't do discounts. I've never, ever paid a dealer list price for a car, there are always discounts to be had and sweetners like free servicing and accessories.
That's why it's hard to compare Tesla prices. A $50k Model 3 isn't comparable for a $50k car from anyone else because only a complete chump will pay any other manufacturer $50k for that vehicle. With a pre-reg deal it could easily be $30k.
Re: (Score:3)
I've never, ever paid a dealer list price for a car, there are always discounts to be had and sweetners like free servicing and accessories.
It's normal for people to pay above list price for vehicles which are in extreme demand... like the Model 3 is. It's common for high-end sports cars, for example, where demand significantly outstrips production.
Agree 100% (Score:2, Insightful)
A touchscreen in a car is a shitty design
For the driver, that is exactly right. A touchscreen has no place in the business of actually driving the car. Maybe for the passenger it's fine, but for the driver, a touchscreen is a solution looking for a problem, and a dangerous one at that. And realistically, the passenger already has a large smartphone, which means the touchscreen is redundant.
Of course the real reason they are replacing standard controls with a touchscreen is so they can wring out a few more d
Re: (Score:2)
Having many controls that would be buttons in most cars on the touch screen is going to be a distraction for drivers. Even stuff like the headlight controls and windscreen wiper settings are on the screen, meaning you have to glance aside and hit a touch target with no tactile feedback.
Go outside. It's been several years since people have to set those things manually.
Re: (Score:2)
Having many controls that would be buttons in most cars on the touch screen is going to be a distraction for drivers. Even stuff like the headlight controls and windscreen wiper settings are on the screen, meaning you have to glance aside and hit a touch target with no tactile feedback.
Go outside. It's been several years since people have to set those things manually.
There are states where you have to turn on the headlights when it is raining enough that the wipers must be in continuous motion. Does the Tesla turn the headlights on automatically in this case? I don't know. But I have driven other cars (rentals) that do not. You have to manually interact with the headlights to comply with the law. Of course, in my experience, most people do not actually comply with that law and are more likely to turn on their hazard lights instead of their headlights which, by the w
Re: (Score:2)
As far as I'm aware, no; the tests are gross crash-related and damage-inflicted.
Then again, considering that some statistics show texting & driving now the cause of up to 25% of crashes (not sure I buy that, did car accidents increase +25% per driver mile since, say, 1995 before texting was a thing?) I don't think there's any shortage of 'potential driver distractions' in ANY driver environment.
While I'm not a Tesla zealot, I have to admit that 'safest car ever' is a pretty nice feather in their cap.
Re: (Score:2)
Headlight controls are on the touch screen because you never use them. The automatic headlights are essentially perfect. They even go on for at least a minute if the wipers go on (as required by law in many states). The only time I can think of needing to manually turn on my headlights was for construction zones in Pennsylvania (weird state law), and I expect the Autopilot will pick that up eventually. The high beams ("brights") are also essentially perfect, though I manually turn them off sometimes at
Re: (Score:2)
Having many controls that would be buttons in most cars on the touch screen is going to be a distraction for drivers. Even stuff like the headlight controls and windscreen wiper settings are on the screen, meaning you have to glance aside and hit a touch target with no tactile feedback.
What do the accident stats say? Do we have per-model data on at-fault crashes?
I like your posts normally, but in this case it's clear that you've never driven one. Best stick matters in which you're qualified.
The chance that I'll get injured in a Model 3 is 0 (Score:5, Funny)
I'm poor.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait still Uber drivers start showing up in one (or something similar). Don't have to own one to ride in one.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean like this? [youtube.com] ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm poor.
You can still dream about one day not being killed on one though.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they're only safer if you're in them, not on them.
biggest selling point (Score:2)
maybe increased safety could become electric cars their biggest selling point?
because they have no engine in front they are already safer then traditional cars, combine with the awd that you is also mostly found on them, these cars main selling point could very well be the safety.
either way, the tesla 3 goes on my list of 'cars to buy', it has great range, it's safe and has good build quality.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with internal combustion engines is that they're large, relatively incompressible objects. And a crash wants to shove that object straight into the cabin. With an electric car - particularly one with a large frunk - the whole front end is available for crumpling; there's no large objects to get pushed back like a battering ram.
Beyond that, EVs are inherently very rollover resistant - they're like weebles [youtube.com]. Model 3 also has a very low polar moment of inertia, because the drive units and battery
Re: (Score:3)
Lol, a Battery Fire Truther ;)
Yes, you tell 'em, statistics be damned, EVs catch fire way more often than the designed-to-burn-easily hydrocarbon in ICE vehicles that you store in big tanks, with lines of the stuff reaching around a hot engine.
With a couple hundred million miles under their belt, the total number of battery fires in customer-owned Model 3s so far has been.... zero. For gasoline cars, it's one every 20 million miles. So far the only evidence of a Model 3 fire of any kind was one in a salvag
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting, I found a picture of you on the internet. [tenor.com]
Note that my statement was about specifically the Model 3. There's not merely "a couple hundred million miles" on S and X; Tesla's total miles as of April (when Model 3 miles were low) was 7,2 billion [electrek.co]. Also, S and X use a different battery tech from the 3 (but are still an order of magnitude less likely to catch on fire than a gasoline car).
Re:biggest selling point (Score:4, Interesting)
Article Topic: "Model 3 Achieves NHTSA's 'Lowest Probability' of Injury Ever"
GGP: "...either way, the tesla 3 goes on my list of 'cars to buy'..."
You: "Except for your extremely high probability of burning to death in a battery fire."
Me: "With a couple hundred million miles under their belt, the total number of battery fires in customer-owned Model 3s..."
You: "Go to Youtube and you will see plenty of videos of Tesla's on fire"
Notice how everyone else was talking about the Model 3 but you.
Wrong [cleantechnica.com].
The top 5 cars [electrek.co] people are trading in to buy Model 3s are: Toyota Prius, BMW 3-Series, Honda Accord, Honda Civic, Nissan Leaf.
That's like saying about rhubarb vs. water hemlock, "It isn't nontoxic. No food is devoid of toxic compounds". While true, people need cars and not all cars are equal.
My Shill Check strangely hasn't arrived! Do you know where it might be? Does this mean that they've gone Bankwupt?! ;)
Um, exactly what it says on the tin? I like the cars, I like the tech, and I like the company.
Re: (Score:3)
You technocrats are so out of touch with reality. Who the hell can afford a $65,000+ car? Only the 0.001%.
False. Any working couple with full-time employment should be able to get a loan for that kind of money, unless they live someplace where rents are ridiculous.
How the fuck is that going to save the planet?
It's a step in the right direction. How the fuck is your complaining about it going to help anything? You're changing no one's mind, and it requires energy to make your comment go 'round.
They are the scourge of the Earth, no matter where they get their energy from.
They're an improvement over what came before, and you can't just wave a magic wand and do things intelligently. You have to work with reality. you know, where the res
Re: biggest selling point (Score:2)
She already explained why; because it uses different tech. She also explained that even including all models they are still far less likely to catch fire than ICE vehicles. Let me ask you a question - why are you such a fucking liar?
Re: biggest selling point (Score:2)
That's exactly what I would expect a liar to say.
Re: biggest selling point (Score:2)
I can tell. Which is why you keep lying about Rei, and about Tesla.
Re: (Score:2)
Out of all the Teslas (any model!) you can find that are on fire, how many of them were involved in some horrific crash?
Nearly all of them [cnbc.com]. Getting a Tesla (or any EV) to catch fire generally requires some effort.
Meanwhile, there is a car fire roughly every 3 minutes in the US alone (based on data from NFPA: 174,000 reported incidents in 2015 [nfpa.org]). 72% [nfpa.org] of these fires are caused by a malfunction of some kind. I guess having a flammable liquids in close proximity to boiling hot metal and gasses can be a hazardous
Survival of the Fittest (Score:3)
This means that natural selection will weed out all the ICE vehicles' drivers over time, right? Electric car master race!
But... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
You do know that there's enough data now to have reliable accident rates for the Tesla models, right? Or maybe you don't, because you wouldn't be incorrectly speculating on their accident rates if you did. Rei posted them up above if you're not interested in googling for them.
It's al because of Tesla. (Score:2)
I wonder this stacks up against something like the XC90, which until now, no one has ever died in. Seems to be favorable.
I would personally love to have an electric car. I think the Tesla design is nice looking, except for the SUV which I find horrid. However, the one I test drove, (model S) I found to be lacking in overall quality.
I am not saying it is a bad car, but it didn't seem all that well put together. There were loads of body panels which didn't line up. Uneven gaps and some plastic bits which look
This might be a problem for short sellers (Score:2, Funny)
So how are the people who have been getting creamed for years trying to short Tesla stock going to pitch this as FUD?
I look forward to reading carefully-placed stories in the business press intended to convince us that getting hurt or killed in a car crash is actually a good thing.
Re:This might be a problem for short sellers (Score:4, Interesting)
Because almost all modern cars are pretty good in this regard?
The 2014 Tesla Model S EuroNCAP tests (equivalent of this test, but only done on certain years, not EVERY possible year of model) actually put it below the Ford Mondeo (called a Fusion in the US) - all the scores are lower except the driver assist tech available on the Mondeo.
But they both score 5 stars. I'm sure in the 4 years since then the newer Mondeos probably score higher still, and the Tesla as well. As does pretty much every decent car - Ford Focus, Nissan Leaf, Kia Stonic, Honda Civic, Subaru Impreza.
It's the ones that DON'T pass with 5 stars that stand out. Pretty much they kill people and they are quickly resubmitted for testing after a redesign.
Do you really think that, in subjective tests, the difference between 5-stars and 5-stars being a small handful of points in things like "how many safety gadgets does the software boast" really make a difference?
I'm no Tesla fan. But I'm a massive safety fan. Safety is incredibly important to me - that's why I own a Mondeo and checked it first. But this is *one* factor - the question of "how much control do I have of the vehicle" is actually a bigger question for me. But orders of magnitude. Hence I don't have all the lane-assist junk on my car deliberately - I refused the option. Because I intend to drive it, not put software in the path of the steering wheel direction.
As one small factor, congratulations, it's a win for Tesla on a subjective test and may / may not actually be repeated around the world with stricter safety requirements on vehicles. In terms of "being a mass market car manufacturer", that puts you firmly in the... well... kinda "damn well expected" section of the statistics.
Congratulations. Tesla *isn't* shit at basic safety tests over a small portion of their cars, testing a small subjective portion of their ability to survive head-on/side collisions.
Go you.
Of course (Score:2)
How is a Tesla going to get in a wreck when it's always being charged?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There are excellent economic and consumer-friendly reasons to avoid hydrogen, but I have to be fair. It's extremely unlikely the on-board storage of hydrogen would turn cars into rolling bombs. Think more in terms of a gasoline-soaked sponge than a tank of gasoline and you'll have an idea how they're planning to store it. So yes, hydrogen fuel would probably burn quite nicely as it escaped after an accident, but I doubt very much whether it would explode.
Re: (Score:2)
Hydrogen would cost close to $8/gallon equivalent....
Hard to say. This is very technology dependent, and better technologies for hydrogen production could possibly be extremely cheap... but whether or not this will become commercial depends on whether there is a pressing market need that pushes the technology toward low cost.