So I just checked out some crash videos on YouTube. The Model S appears to have a surprisingly small crumple zone.
That's just my layman's perspective, but take a look and see if you don't agree. The front readily collapses, but just past the center-point of the wheels (presumably about where the motor area starts) it's a brick wall and the whole 2+ ton vehicle just stops in it's tracks.
Compare that to Volvo crash tests, especially the Euro NCAP Small Offset. The front fender of the Volvo disintegrates, but then the wheel actually flys off and the front of the cabin even appears to absorb some energy. It looks like a much softer landing. The interior shots are even more impressive with less deformation and a lot more padding with a lot less slack in the airbags.
I didn't run across any Model S tests where it looked like that long hood was actually doing much for it since it appears to hit some sort of impenetrably stiff wall halfway through. You can look at the crash test video during a Musk demonstration and see the same thing. There's some sort of structural member there in front of the motor that just doesn't seem to give way.
BTW, it actually appears the Honda Accord mentioned is slightly safer (except for pedestrians) despite the tested model being 5 years older.
The Model S is no doubt a very safe vehicle overall. But it's not the second coming, and Musk's talk of crumple zones appears to be more Marketing than Truth (and the ratings bear that out).
That "Tesla Model S breaks roof test" for example? Not the strongest. Not even at the time of testing. Here's the current generation XC90's results for example: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/volvo/xc90-4-door.... Over 10 tons. The previous generation was off about a ton. As far as I can figure out both figures are greater than the Model S's despite the fan-faire.
That's just my layman's perspective, but take a look and see if you don't agree. The front readily collapses, but just past the center-point of the wheels (presumably about where the motor area starts) it's a brick wall and the whole 2+ ton vehicle just stops in it's tracks.
Compare that to Volvo crash tests, especially the Euro NCAP Small Offset. The front fender of the Volvo disintegrates, but then the wheel actually flys off and the front of the cabin even appears to absorb some energy. It looks like a much softer landing. The interior shots are even more impressive with less deformation and a lot more padding with a lot less slack in the airbags.
Taking a look at the XC90, it's probably no surprise then that it achieves significantly higher ratings, despite having a 4-cylinder ICE in the engine bay. (see http://www.euroncap.com/en/results/volvo/xc90/20976 and http://www.euroncap.com/en/results/tesla/model-s/7897)
I didn't run across any Model S tests where it looked like that long hood was actually doing much for it since it appears to hit some sort of impenetrably stiff wall halfway through. You can look at the crash test video during a Musk demonstration and see the same thing. There's some sort of structural member there in front of the motor that just doesn't seem to give way.
BTW, it actually appears the Honda Accord mentioned is slightly safer (except for pedestrians) despite the tested model being 5 years older.
The Model S is no doubt a very safe vehicle overall. But it's not the second coming, and Musk's talk of crumple zones appears to be more Marketing than Truth (and the ratings bear that out).
That "Tesla Model S breaks roof test" for example? Not the strongest. Not even at the time of testing. Here's the current generation XC90's results for example: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/vehicle/v/volvo/xc90-4-door.... Over 10 tons. The previous generation was off about a ton. As far as I can figure out both figures are greater than the Model S's despite the fan-faire.