

Model S Signature

Share This article


Tesla this week crowed about getting 5-star results across the board on all crash tests run by NHTSA, the Department of Transportation’s National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. In a release, Tesla took information provided to manufacturers on the overall vehicle safety score (VSS), reworked the data and presto, “the Model S achieved a new combined record of 5.4 stars.” Once a car meets the 5-star standard for the highest rating in a particular crash test, NHTSA gives no extra credit for how far an overachiever goes beyond the 5-star threshold.

Here’s an example. The Tesla S and Volvo S60 both got 5-star ratings in all categories. In the side pole intrusion test, Tesla says, “the Model S preserved 63.5 percent of driver residual space vs. 7.8 percent for the Volvo.” Both merit 5 stars, but which car would you rather ride in? Watching the frontal impact test video vs. other crash tests I’ve seen on video and in person, the Model S seems (from the video, which is not scientific proof) to do an exceptional job limiting most of the impact crumpling to the wheel and forward, providing a solid margin of safety for occupants.

A rollover test measures the likelihood of a vehicle rolling over (the bane of tall SUVs) and the roof crushing its occupants. Tesla aced that one, too. But wait, there’s more. During validation testing that Tesla ordered up at an independent lab, the Model S wouldn’t roll using traditional test methods, and in a test of roof strength, “the testing machine failed at just above 4 g’s [meaning] that at least four additional fully loaded Model S vehicles could be placed on top of an owner’s car without the roof caving in.”

However, Tesla notes that it’s possible to game the test by strengthening a car in the locations the machines test. A more neutral explanation would be that automakers make sure the car is engineered to pass the tests; over the years the fear of not doing well on test results has led to safer cars. NHTSA evolved from a head-on front crash test to an offset crash test to a marginal offset (very little overlap) crash test, automakers re-engineer crumple zones and even wheel-and-tire placement to do well.

Tesla determined it would meet the NHTSA front crash test with a 5-star rating and “Tesla then analyzed the Model S to determine the weakest points in the car and retested at those locations until the car achieved 5 stars no matter how the test equipment was configured.” In other words, Tesla expects to perform at a 5-star level no matter how much or little offset in the actual crash. Or better.

Now read: Are EVs just safer, or do we need a new kind of test?

Share This Article


Post a Comment

  • Mark Goldes

    Congratulations to Musk! Great achievement.

    Future electric cars may have unlimited range. Remarkable new energy technology is emerging. For example, engines that substitute atmospheric heat, a form of solar energy,
    for fuel.

    These new engines and other Black Swans – extremely improbable inventions with
    enormous implications – are likely to give electric cars unlimited range and
    the ability to become substantial power plants, selling electricity to
    utilities when suitably parked. No wires needed. These cars might pay for

    See NO FUEL ENGINES and MOVING BEYOND OIL at http://www.aesopinstitute.org

  • Ivor O’Connor

    Yes the tests should be changed so as to make it extremely difficult to game. And the test scores should be on a bell curve.

    For example just saying the Tesla got a 5 gives no indication about how it far exceeded the nearly 400 other vehicles that have been tested since 2011. Nor does it bring attention to the fact the auto was made to pass not just the American tests but those of any country no matter how they were tested. This overbuilding of safety needs to be made very very clear to even the most skeptical haters of EVs.

    • Marco

      One one hand I agree, because comparison is a logical way that we attempt to quantify the subjective qualities of an item. But on the other hand, comparisons become flawed if all entrants are extremely similar. For example, if you have a 90% of dying in a side-impact in all vehicles, does it really matter who scores 89% and who scores 91% chances? It is similar on the other end of the extreme.

      The biggest gains in vehicle safety/survivability now don’t come from tiny improvements in crash tests. They come from things that many people DO NOT want their car companies to mess with. For example, removing choice from the equation in regards to things like seat belts, drunk driving, or even driving the car at all.

      Would a new car that will not drive away unless all occupants are seat-belted be far safer than an identical car without that feature? Yes, very much so. But do most people want to let their car companies FORCE them to buckle up in order to use the vehicle? Nope.

      Vehicle manufacturers and insurers can really work together to make cars safer. Rate decreases can be given to those who voluntarily turn on the kinds of features mentioned above (and others) and therefore (through the data) show that they drive well and will keep themselves safer. Rate increases can be given to the opposite group. And vehicle manufacturers can then install all kinds of sensors to help insurance companies determine this, but still give the owner the option of whether or not to use them.

      • Bill Howard

        Tests are repeatable not perfectly repeatable, so 91% vs. 89% might be a non-meaningful difference. On the other hand, if a car is borderline between 4 and 5 stars, the slight difference could be a big difference in the reported score. Tesla’s claim that others “game” the system is a backhand slap. Automakers are told what the test is and they work to make sure their cars pass the test. That’s just what you do. Tesla does appear to be doing more at least on frontal crashes: making sure no matter what the offset of the front crash, the car will do well. Many years ago the test was changed from frontal (no offset) to offset because some European automakers designed for the offset crash they felt was more common, they built in more rigidity so the (say) left half of the front could collapse properly, but the same stiffness meant the car might not collapse enough in the no-overlap old tests. Now the even-more-offset crash is causing more design / redesign issues.

  • Larry

    however it seems like the battery or something in the back hits everyone from behind
    video 2:30 -2:50

    • Bill Howard

      In a severe accident, the Tesla battery would strike the passengers in the butt, not back, and only if the USS Virginia came to periscope depth and raised the periscope photonics array directly under a Model S. The battery forms the floor of the car or sits under the floor (depending on terminology). It’s not in the trunk. It’s also why the car is so hard to roll over; the heavy stuff is at the bottom.

  • Keyto Clearskies

    Chronicles of Mark Goldes, the Perpetual Scam Machine



    1998: Goldes fools the witless US Air Force with his “room temperature superconductor” scam, receiving over 400,000 dollars in “Innovative Research” grants. No superconductor is produced.








  • Wes Danforth

    5 Stars is the maximum. If you look at injury numbers the Tesla has lower numbers and other 5 star cars. Musk must is just trying to say that his car was score slightly higher than the others, but still 5 star is the maximum. If there was a 6th star then maybe the Tesla could have gotten 6 stars. I think it will be interesting to see the IIHS crash the model S. Their tests are more challenging than the government.

  • Andrew

    “Ironically, one car not listed on the IIHS Top Safety Pick page this week is the Tesla Model S.” – um, that’s not irony, the IIHS hasn’t tested the Model S yet.

  • Keyto Clearskies

    Most Ludicrous Scamvention: Mark Goldes’ “POWERGENIE”

    One of Mark Goldes’ most laughable scams is his “POWERGENIE” sound-powered generator. The brilliant revolutionary breakthrough idea is to blow a horn at a magnetized tuning rod, designed to resonate at the frequency of horn, and then collect the electromotive energy produced by the vibrations of the rod.

    I’m not making this up.

    POWERGENIE tuning rod engine explained – from the patent:







  • Keyto Clearskies

    Aesop Institute is an elaborate fraud, operated by Mark Goldes.



