Tesla earns its first-ever safety award from IIHS for Model 3

This is the part that gets me:<p><pre><code> The Institute’s results also demonstrate the exceptional strength of Model 3’s all-glass roof, which is supported by a very strong metal body structure and helps protect occupants in roll-over crashes. During testing, the car’s roof was able to successfully resist more than 20,000 pounds of force – that’s more than if we placed five Model 3s on top of the car’s roof at once. And, the roof earned a higher strength-to-weight ratio score than any other fully electric vehicle that IIHS has ever tested. </code></pre> It takes the weight of ~5 Model 3s ontop of a single one for the glass roof to shatter. That&#x27;s good engineering.

I get why Tesla gets the flak from analysts, it being a public company; But I rarely see an analyst speak about Tesla&#x27;s impressive record in building safe cars.<p>Especially when there are car manufacturers who try to hide flaws which can lead to catastrophic malfunction or had been caught with cheat devices for emissions test.<p>Also one more thing which is less talked about is Tesla&#x27;s autopilot being useful for people with disabilities although Tesla hasn&#x27;t added any specific features for people with disabilities AFAIK.

On a slight tangent (although it is mentioned in the linked article) I&#x27;m glad the IIHS started paying more attention to headlights.<p>For a while there certain vehicle manufacturers were putting design aesthetic above functional headlights, and even some that didn&#x27;t had mediocre headlights.<p>Since IIHS started dinging vehicles for having bad headlights things seem to have genuinely improved in a noticeable way. As a driver that has to drive on the same road as these vehicles (glare&#x2F;etc) I am happy.

&gt; &quot;Vehicles with alternative powertrains have come into their own,&quot; IIHS Chief Research Officer David Zuby says. &quot;There&#x27;s no need to trade away safety for a lower carbon footprint when choosing a vehicle.&quot;<p>I would guess this is not the real reason. EV&#x27;s have a much bigger crumple zone and can therefor absorb more energy. Since &quot;nobody&quot; wants to hear that EV&#x27;s are saver than combustion engine cars, lets put them into another category...

The panel gaps allow for greater energy absorption. :) seriously though, I am glad to see Tesla getting a few wins here as of late. Not a perfect company or CEO but they are doing a generally great job in my humble opinion.

Contrast the good results of the overlap tests with the report (posted on HN awhile back) from the Tesla that rear-ended the corner of a firetruck at ~35mph that had substantial firewall deformation.<p>It&#x27;s worth remembering that modern cars are very highly optimized for the tests they have to pass. I&#x27;m not saying the M3 or any specific car is good or bad, just take the results with a grain of salt because these metrics are very much targets.

I put to doubt the utility of crash safety ratings.<p>The survival rates for collisions on highway speeds are in single digits no matter what you do. It&#x27;s just laws of physics.<p>Modern luxury sedans have 1m+ crumple zones, and those only make for few percents extra chance at speeds above 60km&#x2F;h.<p>Extending crumple zones beyond that is self defeating, as it will only lead to further increase of average car mass, leading to even more violent collisions<p>Preventing crashes from happening in the first place is far more economically efficient. EU is just few years away from making some forms of ADAS mandatory, and China is realistically talking about centrally controlled &quot;autopilot&quot; being introduced.