IIHS tests EV's/PHEV's - i3 and Model S don't earn TSP rating

[rickhamilton620]

Two all-electric vehicles fall short of meeting the Institute's awards criteria, but consumers who want to minimize gas consumption while also prioritizing safety can choose from two plug-in hybrids that earn the 2017 TOP SAFETY PICK+ award.

The two recently evaluated 2017 all-electric models are the Tesla Model S and the BMW i3. The plug-in hybrid models are the Chevrolet Volt, whose award was announced in December, and the Toyota Prius Prime.

"There's no reason the most efficient vehicles can't also be among the safest," says David Zuby, IIHS executive vice president and chief research officer. "We hope Tesla and BMW will continue to refine the designs of their electric models to maximize driver protection and, especially in the case of Tesla, improve their headlights."

To qualify for TOP SAFETY PICK, a vehicle must earn good ratings in all five crashworthiness evaluations ? small overlap front, moderate overlap front, side, roof strength and head restraints ? and have an available front crash prevention system that earns an advanced or superior rating. The "plus" is awarded to vehicles that meet all those criteria and also come with good or acceptable headlights (see "In the best light: 2017 TOP SAFETY PICK+ winners meet new headlight criteria," Dec. 8, 2016).

The Model S, a large luxury sedan, earns good ratings in all IIHS crashworthiness evaluations except the challenging small overlap front crash test, in which it earns an acceptable rating. Despite lengthening the side curtain airbags to improve small overlap protection in the Model S, Tesla ran into problems in the test when the safety belt allowed the dummy's torso to move too far forward. That allowed the dummy's head to hit the steering wheel hard through the airbag. Measurements from the dummy indicated that injuries to the head, along with the lower right leg, would be possible in a real-world crash of the same severity.

The ratings for the Model S apply to 2016 and 2017 cars built after October 2016. Tesla says it made a production change on Jan. 23 to address the head-contact problem, and IIHS will test the updated vehicle for small overlap protection as soon as it can be delivered.

Although the i3, the Volt and the Prius all did better in the small overlap evaluation than the Model S, the results can't be compared because the Model S is larger than the others. Since the kinetic energy involved in a front crash depends on the speed and weight of the vehicle, the Tesla's acceptable rating is based on a more severe crash than the good ratings of the lighter cars.

One version of the Model S, the P100D, also falls short on roof strength, which is important for protecting people in a rollover crash. The rating is based on a strength-to-weight ratio. The P100D has the same roof structure as other Model S versions but is heavier, due to a larger battery, so it earns an acceptable rating.

The current version of the Model S hasn't yet been rated for front crash prevention. While automatic braking equipment comes standard, Tesla hasn't yet activated the software for all vehicles.

The 2017 Model S isn't available with anything other than poor-rated headlights. Tesla says it is working with its supplier to improve the headlights, and IIHS will evaluate the new ones when they are available.

The i3, a small car, fails to reach the winner's circle because it rates only acceptable in the head restraint and seat evaluation, which measures a vehicle's ability to protect against neck injuries in a rear crash. While such injuries are rarely fatal, they are the most common type of crash injury and can cause debilitating pain.

The i3 earns good ratings in the other crashworthiness tests and is available with an optional front crash prevention system that earns an advanced rating. The system reduced the impact speed by an average of 9 mph in the 12 mph track test and by 7 mph in the 25 mph test. Its warning component meets National Highway Traffic Safety Administration criteria.

The i3's only available headlight system earns an acceptable rating.

"BMW clearly thought a lot about safety when designing the i3," Zuby says. "It's a shame that it missed the mark on head restraints, which is something most of today's vehicles get right. Among small cars, the i3 is the only 2017 model that doesn't earn a good rating."

The 2017 Volt can be optionally equipped with either an advanced- or superior-rated front crash prevention system. It earns a good rating for headlights when equipped with optional high-beam assist, which automatically switches between high beams and low beams based on the presence of other vehicles. Without high-beam assist, the Volt's headlights are acceptable.

The Prius Prime is the plug-in version of the Prius hybrid, also a TOP SAFETY PICK+ winner. Its standard front crash prevention system earns a superior rating, and its only available headlights earn an acceptable rating.

While the Volt and the Prius Prime can both run on gas, the Volt has an edge in electric-only driving. It can travel 53 miles in electric-only mode, while the Prius Prime can go 25 miles without using gas, according to EPA estimates. When it hasn't been plugged in, the Prius Prime gets 54 miles per gallon, while the Volt gets 42 mpg.

IIHS plans to test another green car, the all-electric Chevrolet Bolt, once it becomes widely available later this year.

Source: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/news/deskt...rs-fall-short-of-earning-an-iihs-safety-award

 

[Spectre]

Were there any non-BMW-fanboys who were actually surprised by this?

 

[thomas]

I was surprised to see that the complains have nothing to do with them being EVs. And it is not like they are bad, they just don't win the cake. I indeed not surprised by the fact that a rear impact on a compact car with less of a trunk is not as "comfy" as in larger cars, I by default assume that as a given, so the i3 losing points here is what I expected. The Tesla's roof strength thingamajig is mildly surprising, but only after I checked the weight range of the S. I expected a good chunky difference between the battery packs, I did not expect nearly 700lbs between the 60 and the P100D. Seeing how the 90D still passes their tests perfectly, but the 100D slips in the ratings to "acceptable" (again showing that what reads like a "OMG FAIL" headline is merely a "they are not the best of the best"), I guess that they probably won't be putting much more batteries in that thing in the future, sine I'd assume that they did calculate stuff like that when designing the car. Which has probably been long before anyone thought of the P100D in particular. The seatbelt thing though is a little surprise. I agree that headlights are important, but I fail to see why they praise the Volt and the Prius for their headlights while they both only earn "acceptable" like the i3 (ignoring the optional highbeam assist for the Volt raising it to good for no apparent reason, since I am failing to see how that bumps the Volt up but not the other cars, lacking infos on the detailed raitings). I am surprised to hear that the Model S headlights are apparently shit though. Did not expect that, didn't hear that before, and I have in fact a hard time believing it. Or their standards for "poor" are really really high.. . And don't even get me started on crash prevention systems and (imo "physical") safety ratings. But I think a discussion on that matter is already going on somewhere else here..

 

[Perc]

There's no excuse to produce a car with shit headlights.

I mean: my car with optional xenons has decent lights. A passat from the same year with xenons has shit headlights. I've been in one for hundreds of km's at night. It was terrible.

This is two cars made by the same parent company, and both of them have projectors which are the same size. There's no reason why the passat has to have shit lights but for some reason, it does.

 

[AiR]

Tesla S lights aren't very good considering what it costs, here's what ViB found when they tested:

Model	Low beam width (m)	Low beam length (m)	High beam width (m)	High beam length (m)
BMW 7-Series LED	26	90	34	256
Mercedes S-Class LED	27	137	18	204
Tesla Model S HID	18	72	14	191

Sidenote: The BMW 7-series LED is quite remarkable

 

[D-Fence]

"There's no reason the most efficient vehicles can't also be among the safest,"

Basic misunderstanding on how weight works

Also, is anyone surprised a car with a engine block in front is safer in a front crash than cars without? I think the volt should be downvoted because letting customers pay extra for better crash protection is as much of a dick move as it gets. I do agree on i3 seats, they are.... Weird.

 

[chaos386]

Also, is anyone surprised a car with a engine block in front is safer in a front crash than cars without?

Yeah, actually. An engine in the way means that area can't be used as a crumple zone.

 

[Cowboy]

Yeah, well, and I'm sure some shitbox enthousiast is going to pull some statistic from Google to prove me wrong, but in my world, when I hit anything I would much rather have a big uncompressable lump of pigiron and several feet of vehicle in front of me then 'a crumple zone' and not much else at all.

 

[prizrak]

Yeah, well, and I'm sure some shitbox enthousiast is going to pull some statistic from Google to prove me wrong, but in my world, when I hit anything I would much rather have a big uncompressable lump of pigiron and several feet of vehicle in front of me then 'a crumple zone' and not much else at all.

There are two things here:
1) Heavier vehicle will generally be better in real world scenarios just because of how kinetic energy works
2) Crumple zones are actually one of the main reasons modern cars are safer than older cars. The idea is dissipation of energy, any energy that goes into compressing the crumple zone will not make it to the passenger cell, also remember older cars often ended up with engines in passenger compartment because it is a big uncompressible lump of pig iron.

 

[narf]

Yeah, well, and I'm sure some shitbox enthousiast is going to pull some statistic from Google to prove me wrong, but in my world, when I hit anything I would much rather have a big uncompressable lump of pigiron and several feet of vehicle in front of me then 'a crumple zone' and not much else at all.

For hitting movable things (mostly cars), lots of mass on your side helps you, lower deceleration through crumpling helps both sides.
For hitting immovable things (trees, bridges, houses, etc.), lots of mass on your side doesn't help you, lower deceleration through crumpling does help you.
For avoiding an incident, agility helps you.

 

[D-Fence]

For hitting movable things (mostly cars), lots of mass on your side helps you, lower deceleration through crumpling helps both sides.
For hitting immovable things (trees, bridges, houses, etc.), lots of mass on your side doesn't help you, lower deceleration through crumpling does help you.
For avoiding an incident, agility helps you.

Leave him be. He will hit something big at some point and either go flying through the windscreen or get crushed by his massive engine block compressing the rock solid passenger cabin.