What does this do to repairability? The "nice" thing about having 400 parts is that when one breaks, you can theoretically replace it. When it's one giant part, then any damage to the underbody...
What does this do to repairability? The "nice" thing about having 400 parts is that when one breaks, you can theoretically replace it. When it's one giant part, then any damage to the underbody would just mean that the car is totaled?
Electric cars already have issues around super expensive repairs as it is. It's why insurance for them is significantly higher than conventional vehicles.
Given Tesla's track record for safety, this just further re-enforces I'll never buy a Tesla. You're spot on. A small fender bender is no longer small. Frame damage is no joke.
Given Tesla's track record for safety, this just further re-enforces I'll never buy a Tesla.
You're spot on. A small fender bender is no longer small. Frame damage is no joke.
More recalls than any other automaker. Here's Tesla's safety recall list. 55 recalls over 5 models of car, since 2009. 11 recalls per car model. Here's Toyota. 259 over 50+ models, or just under 6...
Here's Tesla's safety recall list. 55 recalls over 5 models of car, since 2009. 11 recalls per car model.
Here's Toyota. 259 over 50+ models, or just under 6 recalls per car model, dating back to 2003 (or earlier, I didn't check all models).
While that methodology may be flawed, it does tell me that Tesla is far from the safest. And given that we've seen Elon's true face courtesy of Twitter, I feel confident in choosing to avoid any product associated with his name as long as possible.
I'm sorry but that just shows that you don't understand what you're talking about. Tesla does recalls over really minor things because Tesla recalls are almost all just software updates. Tesla...
I'm sorry but that just shows that you don't understand what you're talking about. Tesla does recalls over really minor things because Tesla recalls are almost all just software updates. Tesla does recalls for things like turning off the ability to play music over the car's external speakers while it is moving. There were valid safety reasons the NHTSA asked them to disable that feature, but it's hardly what you're imagining when you say that Tesla is unsafe because of recalls. Frankly, it is in many instances a positive for safety because it just means their pushing an OTA software update to everybody, whereas many other automakers lack the ability to do OTA updates, meaning a recall would require every single vehicle to go to a service center so their actuaries decide it's not worth it. Tesla has minimal costs for recalls so they're worth it in tons of situations.
I mean, think about a company that has really shitty cars and just doesn't do any recalls because they'd rather fight in court. They would be the safest company there is by your method.
I'm with you that recalls isn't really a good measure, and your explanation for why opens up how I think Tesla needs to be evaluated on safety. Elon has said it himself, Tesla is more valuable...
I'm with you that recalls isn't really a good measure, and your explanation for why opens up how I think Tesla needs to be evaluated on safety. Elon has said it himself, Tesla is more valuable because of the software rather than the hardware. That's what all the investors are banking on. So the safety of the cars shouldn't be solely based on the hardware of the vehicle but also the software, specifically that means including accidents resulting from AutoPilot or any other features Tesla incorporates, the not even close to full, "Full Self Driving" feature as well.
Now whether or not in the greater context that makes Tesla a less safe vehicle than others I am not trying to make that claim as it's a very complex topic that requires tons of research to make those comparisons.
If you bring back in the hardware aspect, it's also worth considering that all of these cars that are supposedly very safe are generally only safer for the occupant of the vehicle and often say nothing about the safety of others. Electric vehicles, and Tesla being one of the more popular ones early in the game, have a few key benefits over other vehicles in terms of occupant safety, like having a massive battery that provides a low center of gravity. Any non-electric vehicle getting hit by an electric vehicle is probably going to be at a disadvantage especially if they're of similar vehicle size.
Overall I think talking about occupant safety of vehicles without context or pretending that it's somehow inherently superior to others based on typical safety measurements is a fairly selfish look at vehicles considering that safety can be externalizing the damage onto others so that corporations can sell more vehicles.
I realize your initial comment was in response to someone faulting Tesla over their safety record, and they defended their comment by using the flawed approach to evaluating safety, I'm simply replying to this comment because it's the most recent in the chain and it started the meta evaluation of safety.
I definitely get what you're saying, but I don't really think it's fully relevant in this conversation because this is about occupant safety. Very few people buy a car because it's safer for other...
I definitely get what you're saying, but I don't really think it's fully relevant in this conversation because this is about occupant safety. Very few people buy a car because it's safer for other people. Tens or even hundreds of millions of people choose cars based on its occupant safety. Government regulations are important for non-occupant safety.
The software aspect is relevant to occupant safety. With regards to safety other than occupants, it's relevant in the sense that government regulation comes about because the people they represent...
The software aspect is relevant to occupant safety. With regards to safety other than occupants, it's relevant in the sense that government regulation comes about because the people they represent know about the issue, understand the issue, and encourage representatives to give a damn about it. So whether or not it's reasonable that an individual has the ability to express concern for non-occupant safety through purchases, individuals still need to know about it just the same in order for regulation to come about.
2021: Tesla Model Y achieves highest possible IIHS safety rating 2023: Dark Side Of Tesla Autopilot: NHTSA Data Reveals 736 Crashes, 17 Deaths I think it's an example of Goodhart's law - "When a...
I think it's an example of Goodhart's law - "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"
there are objective measurements for crash-safety, and Tesla maxed those out, because they designed their cars to do so.
but there are not yet objective tests of self-driving safety to the same degree as there are with the IIHS crash ratings. so we're left with subjective anecdotes, such as videos showing self-driving trying to turn left in front of an oncoming train among many others.
if you look only at the objective crash-safety data, it's easy to conclude that Teslas are extremely safe. if you consider the more subjective anecdotes showing "full self-driving" being dangerous, or doors being difficult to open during a fire, and so on, the picture of Tesla's safety is much more ambiguous.
Not to be callous, but 17 deaths is nothing over several years. There were about 40,000 traffic fatalities each year that those 17 deaths covered! 17 is less than a rounding error! I think you're...
Not to be callous, but 17 deaths is nothing over several years. There were about 40,000 traffic fatalities each year that those 17 deaths covered! 17 is less than a rounding error!
I think you're right that there are ways to look at it that make things more ambiguous, but there are objective ways. I cannot for the life of me find the numbers, but passenger deaths per unit distance would be one objective--if imperfect--way that does not have any ambiguity.
no, you're missing the point I was making. there will always be a subjective element to safety. it is not possible to remove subjectivity and rely solely on objective measurements. trying to do so...
I think you're right that there are ways to look at it that make things more ambiguous, but there are objective ways.
no, you're missing the point I was making.
there will always be a subjective element to safety. it is not possible to remove subjectivity and rely solely on objective measurements. trying to do so is misguided.
it's necessary to look at both objective and subjective data. you expect them to broadly point in the same direction. if they disagree, you want to look into why. are the subjective anecdotes captured within the objective measurements, or do they represent phenomena outside what the objective testing covers?
with Tesla, you have objective data like IIHS crash ratings that points towards "super duper safe" like you're claiming, and anecdotal data (like the "Full Self Driving tries to turn in front of an oncoming train" I linked to) that points in a very different direction. it's necessary to reconcile those and figure out why they disagree.
the overall impression when you take both of them into account is, as I said, cars that are very safe in a crash test, and unsafe in rather absurd ways when not considering the narrow circumstances of crash tests.
for another example, I linked to an article above where someone's Model Y caught fire unexpectedly.
when you're hell-bent at looking only at objective data, you would want to compare the rates of the Model Y catching fire compared to other cars. maybe they're lower, maybe they're higher, maybe they're about the same. it doesn't really matter, because the point I'm making is that you can't look only at the objective data like that.
subjectively, after his car caught fire, he couldn't open the door and had to kick out a window.
The Tesla Model Y’s doors normally open automatically with the push of a button, but this model allegedly malfunctioned at the time, leaving its smoked-out passenger to find another way out. There is a mechanical door release inside the car for this type of emergency, but with a face full of toxic burning plastic, Jutha obviously opted to create his own exit.
To open a front door in the unlikely situation when Model Y has no power, pull up the manual door release located in front of the window switches.
so there's the "normal" door open button, and a separate mechanism you use only in an emergency (such as the car being on fire)
every other car I've ever ridden in, there's one door release lever, and it works the same whether or not the car is currently on fire. Tesla "innovated" having two door release levers, the normal one, and then an extra one which you shouldn't use under normal circumstances, but which may be necessary to use if the car is on fire.
this is pretty basic human-factors stuff - in an emergency, adrenaline and muscle memory takes over. most drivers in that situation probably aren't going to remember the emergency-door-release (if they know about it at all, either from thoroughly reading the owner's manual or from a mention of it at the dealership when they took delivery).
he was able to kick out the window and escape, so that's good. but what if he hadn't been able to? what if, for example, he had gotten into a crash that broke one of his legs, prior to the car catching fire? in that case, he might have shown up in your objective statistics as a death due to smoke inhalation or fire. you would need to look at the subjective circumstances of the crash to realize that it would have been an entirely preventable death if he had been able to open the door and hobble away.
oh, and it gets better. quoting from the Model Y manual again:
If equipped, you can open a rear door manually in the unlikely situation in which Model Y has no power:
Note: Not all Model Y vehicles are equipped with a manual release for the rear doors.
Remove the mat from the bottom of the rear door pocket.
Press the red tab to remove the access door.
Pull the mechanical release cable forward.
at this point I am quite comfortable with subjectively calling the Model Y an unsafe death trap piece of shit.
first off, why the amateur-hour fuck is the manual release for the rear doors an optional feature?
suppose that guy had been riding with people in the backseat when the car caught fire. why does their safety depend on optional equipment?
even if it was equipped with the optional feature - what is the likelihood that the passengers know this secret rear-door release procedure?
and again, this is entirely decoupled from objective data. in theory, you could pull up statistics on "how many people, in what make & model of car, have been trapped in the rear seats of a burning car and unable to exit". in practice...who cares. the number is probably 0. if it's non-zero, it's going to be so small that you can't meaningfully interpolate it into a statistic. and that number should be zero, because it's a scenario that should be impossible. the mere fact that it's possible in a Tesla shows that they're unsafe.
you can subjectively tell this car is unsafe just by reading the owner's manual.
Yes...that's why they're objective. I don't give a rat's ass if I'm more likely to be trapped in a car in some extremely rare situations if I'm less likely to be injured or killed in the first...
in that case, he might have shown up in your objective statistics as a death due to smoke inhalation or fire.
Yes...that's why they're objective. I don't give a rat's ass if I'm more likely to be trapped in a car in some extremely rare situations if I'm less likely to be injured or killed in the first place. Your ranting frankly reads to me like the people who say they don't wear seatbelts because the seatbelt might trap them in a burning car. Yeah, both the seatbelt and forgetting about the emergency release (which is so obvious--if you aren't in a situation causing panic to override your brain's normal function--that most passengers automatically pull it to get out of the car instead of pressing the button), but the seatbelt will save your life about a million times before it causes you to die in a fire, and the same might be true of Teslas' safety features. You can't just say something is a death trap because you don't understand it.
The manual release for the Model Y is not optional. The only physical options for Teslas are color and performance level (speed/range). You are right that it is a stupid system, though.
that number should be zero, because it's a scenario that should be impossible. the mere fact that it's possible in a Tesla shows that they're unsafe.
you can subjectively tell this car is unsafe just by reading the owner's manual.
I do not understand your point. Safety isn't "obscure things are possible." I was going to come up with an equivalent example in your logic, but there actually is no equivalent because when I tried to follow that same logic, I found that there was no logic unless you say that everything is unsafe. There are millions...billions...frankly, infinite factors that play into vehicle safety. To completely count a vehicle as unsafe because of one suboptimal component would render every vehicle as a horrifying death trap.
You could seriously do this with anything. I dislike Tesla as a company and Elon Musk as much as pretty much anybody, but I don't see why you are so focused on this.
I have no idea where you're getting this comparison from. the owner's manual on Tesla's website says otherwise: who should I believe? my point is that a system should fail safely, even in the...
Your ranting frankly reads to me like the people who say they don't wear seatbelts because the seatbelt might trap them in a burning car.
I have no idea where you're getting this comparison from.
The manual release for the Model Y is not optional. The only physical options for Teslas are color and performance level (speed/range).
the owner's manual on Tesla's website says otherwise:
Note: Not all Model Y vehicles are equipped with a manual release for the rear doors.
who should I believe?
I do not understand your point. Safety isn't "obscure things are possible."
my point is that a system should fail safely, even in the presence of "obscure things" happening.
for example, if you've flown on an airline, I'm sure you've heard the flight attendant briefing about locating your nearest emergency exits etc.
modern airlines are extremely safe. but they still have the emergency exits. they still require that pre-flight briefing to be given before every single flight. they still require people seated in exit rows to meet requirements for being able to assist in an emergency.
and in order to be certified, aircraft must be able to be evacuated in under 90 seconds via the emergency exits. not just that, but evacuated with a full passenger load, with half the exits blocked or unusable. you can watch a video of this test being done on an Airbus A380. in an attempt to make the test as realistic as possible, they block the exits at random, with the test passengers not knowing which exits are blocked beforehand. and they conduct it with the cabin lights out, and with a minimum of 35% of the passengers being over 50 years old (in other words, no cheating on the test by having nothing but 20 year old college students as passengers).
the crucial thing is you don't just say "oh, aircraft are super safe and almost never crash, so it's fine and I'm sure people will be able to exit". you also game out "assume a crash does happen, and people need to evacuate. can they do it safely and quickly?" and you go even further than that, and say "assume whatever caused the crash also blocked some of the emergency exits. can they evacuate in 90 seconds with only half the exits available?"
that's the point I'm making that you're still missing. you shouldn't just say "oh, Teslas rarely catch fire so it's fine". you need to go further and consider "if it does catch fire, how safe is it while it's on fire?"
with a Tesla, "if it catches fire, the passengers in the rear seats might be trapped and unable to open the doors" is just inherently unsafe. there is no amount of "oh but the car probably won't catch fire in the first place" that makes up for it.
when you say things like:
I don't give a rat's ass if I'm more likely to be trapped in a car in some extremely rare situations if I'm less likely to be injured or killed in the first place
the problem is that you are looking at safety as a one-dimensional thing. either the car catches fire or it doesn't. either the plane crashes or it doesn't.
safety is inherently multi-dimensional. when a plane crashes, how safe it it to escape from? when a plane crashes and some of the emergency exits are blocked, is it still safe to escape from? likewise, when a car catches fire, how safe is it to escape from?
Okay, this is starting to feel like one of those encounters on reddit where I'm just trying to correct misconceptions and the other person decides to turn it into an argument so I'm going to...
Okay, this is starting to feel like one of those encounters on reddit where I'm just trying to correct misconceptions and the other person decides to turn it into an argument so I'm going to disengage.
And trust me, I know what you're saying--but an airplane without emergency exits is still safer than a car with doors that fail safe. Things can exist in multiple dimensions while still being comparable--someone who moved two feet to the right and ten thousand miles forward moved farther than someone who moved five feet in each direction.
have you considered that "trying to correct misconceptions" can easily come off at patronizing, condescending, and argumentative? you're reaching conclusions about my intentions that I don't think...
I'm just trying to correct misconceptions
have you considered that "trying to correct misconceptions" can easily come off at patronizing, condescending, and argumentative?
and the other person decides to turn it into an argument
you're reaching conclusions about my intentions that I don't think you have any evidence for.
Another good subjective take for you and @updawg: How do cars fare in crash tests they're not designed for. While its not a be-all, end all, only 1 Tesla model made it on the 2023 top list, and...
Also, you look at collision losses and Tesla comes out far worse than average. This tells me there's a disconnect between "rated safety" and "actual safety".
Subaru by contrast comes out way ahead of the pack.
Take a look at this render: https://i.imgur.com/fWGLZfG.jpg they're not rendering bolts in it, but you can see how many parts are involved in the frame, and you can also see that there are very...
they're not rendering bolts in it, but you can see how many parts are involved in the frame, and you can also see that there are very few bolt holes or places where bolts might fit. There's a lot of welding involved, and it's not easy to swap out parts.
Frame damage in normal cars is already generally considered a total loss.
There are definitely folks who will use donor cars and repair this sort of damage under a salvage title, but it's impossible to get it as good as original.
Ah, if this is mostly replacing welded parts, then I can see where the repairability of those particular parts isn't affected. The repairability is already virtually non-existent for those parts....
Ah, if this is mostly replacing welded parts, then I can see where the repairability of those particular parts isn't affected. The repairability is already virtually non-existent for those parts. But any further replacement of bolts by welds will further reduce repairability, which is definitely unfortunaten for consumers. I definitely evaluate repairability when I buy something.
This article says I'm sure it widely varies, probably from state to state. But we talked about it at work, and our staff either electric vehicles were all paying pretty significantly more than...
Compared to their gas equivalents, electric vehicles cost approximately $442 more to insure.
I'm sure it widely varies, probably from state to state. But we talked about it at work, and our staff either electric vehicles were all paying pretty significantly more than those that drove gas ones. The common reason seems to be that it doesn't take much to total an electric vehicle. Remember the guy who found that a minor bumper repair on his Rivian was going to be $42k? That's obviously an extreme situation, but the overall issue still stands.
As the article points out, electric cars are more expensive so it makes sense that they also cost more to insure. It might be interesting to compare cars with the same purchase price, but they...
As the article points out, electric cars are more expensive so it makes sense that they also cost more to insure. It might be interesting to compare cars with the same purchase price, but they probably wouldn’t be equivalent in other ways.
emphasis added: "reinvents" and "breakthrough" in the headline seem to be unjustified hype, given this detail. they have not publicly unveiled a model that uses this manufacturing technique, much...
emphasis added:
The five people said a single large frame - combining the front and rear sections with the middle underbody where the battery is housed - could be used in Tesla's small EV which it aims to launch with a price tag of $25,000 by the middle of the decade.
"reinvents" and "breakthrough" in the headline seem to be unjustified hype, given this detail. they have not publicly unveiled a model that uses this manufacturing technique, much less delivered that model to any customers.
the author also uses weasel words throughout:
a technological breakthrough that could transform
Tesla is closing in on an innovation
if Tesla managed to gigacast most of the underbody of an EV, it would further disrupt the way cars are designed and manufactured.
As controversial as Elon Musk is - Tesla really has been a pioneer in a lot of different ways. This article reminds me of a similar interview that Kara Swisher did with Elon (before they became...
As controversial as Elon Musk is - Tesla really has been a pioneer in a lot of different ways. This article reminds me of a similar interview that Kara Swisher did with Elon (before they became estranged) when she had a NY Times podcast called Sway.
It was a few years back, but I remember specifically the intense focus Musk was putting into Tesla at the time to try to keep it alive. From the interview:
Smart people on Wall Street have, usually, not the faintest clue about manufacturing and how difficult it is. They think that once you have come up with a prototype, well, that’s the hard part. And everything else is trivial copying after that. It is not. That is perhaps 1% of the problem. Large scale manufacturing, especially of a new technology, is somewhere between 1,000% and 10,000% harder than the prototype. I would really regard, at this point, prototypes as a trivial joke. The press coverage of this event was sad.
The thing that Tesla has been able to achieve is to get to a volume manufacturing and have sustainable positive free cash flow. From a car company standpoint, this is the real achievement of Tesla. There’ve been hundreds of car company startups over the years, hundreds. And yet, the only companies that have not gone bankrupt are Ford and Tesla. Even GM and Chrysler went bankrupt in 2009. It is insanely difficult to reach volume production as a car company and not die. And the only way a new car company breaks in is by making a car that is so compelling that people are willing to pay extra for that car.
There was another podcast that I can't find where Musk was talking about trying to "build the machine that builds that car", referring to manufacturing and the supply chain issues related to it. There was so much focus on production that he (and others) were calling it production hell. In part, this was because every mistake, every inefficiency was a compounding problem as they worked to ramp up production. Supply chain delays were about ~6 months for some parts, so there was a really long tail for each mistake.
The whole thing was really interesting, and separately it's an interesting point that a real car company hasn't come about and not gone bankrupt when trying to compete with the incumbents.
It can be hard to tell from the outside how much is real and how much is hype. This stuff does matter if you’re an investor, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to bet on individual stocks. Car...
It can be hard to tell from the outside how much is real and how much is hype. This stuff does matter if you’re an investor, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to bet on individual stocks.
Car buyers mostly care about the end result: are they better cars, and/or cheaper cars? How good is the service? Are they still going to be around?
The “bet the company” stuff isn’t a good sign if you’re concerned about longevity, but I guess it worked out for them so far. It remains to be seen if one of Musk’s companies can stop swinging for the fences and settle down.
There's a lot of parallels between Tesla and SpaceX in this regard. The majority of publicity SpaceX gets these days is focused pretty squarely on individual prototype vehicles, but those are...
There's a lot of parallels between Tesla and SpaceX in this regard. The majority of publicity SpaceX gets these days is focused pretty squarely on individual prototype vehicles, but those are almost a by-product of the primary focal point which is figuring out the manufacturing process and ruthlessly streamlining it so that not just prototypes, but eventually also the final product can be manufactured quickly, consistently, and cost-effectively.
This takes the typical tall step of productionization and smooths it into a gradual ramp. It also makes loss of prototypes comparatively painless, because they're "cattle, not pets" and effectively disposable.
The difference in the companies almost seems to be a willingness to back the risk until it breaks through a critical point. The incumbents in the space are risk adverse and when they do take risks...
The difference in the companies almost seems to be a willingness to back the risk until it breaks through a critical point. The incumbents in the space are risk adverse and when they do take risks or try to innovate the runway for success before a course change seems to be small.
Tesla can't develop a car from the ground up in four years as it is. They're not going to leapfrog other auto manufacturers that easily. I'm also incredulous because Tesla has brought 4 different...
Two of the sources said Tesla's previously unreported new design and manufacturing techniques meant the company could develop a car from the ground up in 18 to 24 months, while most rivals can currently take anywhere from three to four years.
Tesla can't develop a car from the ground up in four years as it is. They're not going to leapfrog other auto manufacturers that easily.
I'm also incredulous because Tesla has brought 4 different car models to the market over it's 20 year lifespan (plus the semi?) vs other auto makers each bringing a few dozen models to mass production in that same timeframe.
Norihiko Shirouzu 3D printing Tailor-made alloys Obstacles Link to the archived version
Norihiko Shirouzu
Tesla (TSLA.O) has combined a series of innovations to make a technological breakthrough that could transform the way it makes electric vehicles and help Elon Musk achieve his aim of halving production costs, five people familiar with the move said.
The company pioneered the use of huge presses with 6,000 to 9,000 tons of clamping pressure to mold the front and rear structures of its Model Y in a "gigacasting" process that slashed production costs and left rivals scrambling to catch up.
In a bid to extend its lead, Tesla is closing in on an innovation that would allow it to die cast nearly all the complex underbody of an EV in one piece, rather than about 400 parts in a conventional car, the people said.
Terry Woychowski, president of U.S. engineering company Caresoft Global, said if Tesla managed to gigacast most of the underbody of an EV, it would further disrupt the way cars are designed and manufactured
"It is an enabler on steroids. It has a huge implication for the industry, but it's a very challenging task," said Woychowski, who worked for U.S. automaker GM (GM.N) for more than three decades. "Castings are very hard to do, especially the bigger and the more complicated.
3D printing
The breakthrough Tesla has made centres on the how the giant molds for such a large part are designed and tested for mass production, and how casts can incorporate hollow subframes with internal ribs to cut weight and boost crashworthiness.
In both cases the innovations, developed by design and casting specialists in Britain, Germany, Japan and the United States, involve 3D printing and industrial sand, the five people said. All spoke to Reuters on condition of anonymity because they are not authorised to speak to the media.
So far, automakers have shied away from casting ever-bigger structures because of the "gigacast dilemma": creating molds to make parts of 1.5 metres squared or more boosts efficiency but is expensive and comes with myriad risks.
Once a large metal test mold has been made, machining tweaks during the design process could cost $100,000 a go, or redoing the mold altogether might come to $1.5 million, according to one casting specialist. Another said the whole design process for a large metal mold would typically cost about $4 million.
That has been deemed prohibitive by automakers - especially as a design might need half a dozen tweaks or more to achieve a perfect die from the perspective of noise and vibration, fit and finish, ergonomics and crashworthiness, the sources said.
But Musk's vision from the start was to find a way to cast the underbody in one piece, despite the risks, the sources said.
Tailor-made alloys
The subframes in a car underbody are typically hollow to save weight and improve crashworthiness. At the moment, they are made by stamping and welding multiple parts together leaving a void in the middle.
To cast subframes with hollows as part of one gigacasting, Tesla plans to place solid sand cores printed by the binder jets within the overall mold. Once the part has been cast, the sand is removed to leave the voids.
But despite that greater flexibility achieved in both the design process and the complexity of the large frames, there was still one more major hurdle to clear. The aluminium alloys used to produce the castings behaved differently in sand and metal molds and often failed to meet Tesla's criteria for crashworthiness and other attributes.
The casting specialists overcame that by formulating special alloys, fine-tuning the molten alloy cooling process, and also coming up with an after-production heat treatment, three of the sources said. And once Tesla is happy with the prototype mold, it can then invest in a final metal one for mass production.
The sources said Tesla's upcoming small car has given it a perfect opportunity to cast an EV platform in one piece, mainly because its underbody is simpler.
The kind of small cars Tesla is developing – one for personal use and the other a robotaxi – don't have a big "overhang" at the front and the back, as there is not much of a hood or rear trunk. "It's like a boat in a way, a battery tray with small wings attached to both ends. That would make sense to do in one piece," one person said.
Obstacles
The sources said, however, that Tesla still had to make a call on what kind of gigapress to use if it decides to cast the underbody in one piece - and that choice would also dictate how complex the car frame would be.
To punch out such large body parts fast, the people said Tesla would need new bigger gigapresses with massive clamping power of 16,000 tons or more, which would come with a hefty price tag and might need larger factory buildings.
Three of the five sources said one problem with presses using high clamping power, however, was that they cannot house the 3D printed sand cores needed to make hollow subframes.
The people said Tesla could solve these obstacles by using a different type of press into which molten alloy can be injected slowly - a method that tends to produce higher quality castings and can accommodate the sand cores. But the process takes longer.
"Tesla could still choose high-pressure for productivity, or they could choose slow alloy injection for quality and versatility," one of the people said. "It's still a coin toss at this point."
Wording of articles like this bother me. They make it sound like Elon is down there on the floor with engineers planning and optimizing manufacturing processes. All the work is done by either...
Wording of articles like this bother me. They make it sound like Elon is down there on the floor with engineers planning and optimizing manufacturing processes. All the work is done by either Tesla or Elon. Not engineers. Not teams of people with expertise, school and knowledge. Not hard working employees. Its all Elon Musk. Cool.
What does this do to repairability? The "nice" thing about having 400 parts is that when one breaks, you can theoretically replace it. When it's one giant part, then any damage to the underbody would just mean that the car is totaled?
Electric cars already have issues around super expensive repairs as it is. It's why insurance for them is significantly higher than conventional vehicles.
Given Tesla's track record for safety, this just further re-enforces I'll never buy a Tesla.
You're spot on. A small fender bender is no longer small. Frame damage is no joke.
What? Isn't Tesla one of the safest auto makers around?
More recalls than any other automaker.
Here's Tesla's safety recall list. 55 recalls over 5 models of car, since 2009. 11 recalls per car model.
Here's Toyota. 259 over 50+ models, or just under 6 recalls per car model, dating back to 2003 (or earlier, I didn't check all models).
While that methodology may be flawed, it does tell me that Tesla is far from the safest. And given that we've seen Elon's true face courtesy of Twitter, I feel confident in choosing to avoid any product associated with his name as long as possible.
I'm sorry but that just shows that you don't understand what you're talking about. Tesla does recalls over really minor things because Tesla recalls are almost all just software updates. Tesla does recalls for things like turning off the ability to play music over the car's external speakers while it is moving. There were valid safety reasons the NHTSA asked them to disable that feature, but it's hardly what you're imagining when you say that Tesla is unsafe because of recalls. Frankly, it is in many instances a positive for safety because it just means their pushing an OTA software update to everybody, whereas many other automakers lack the ability to do OTA updates, meaning a recall would require every single vehicle to go to a service center so their actuaries decide it's not worth it. Tesla has minimal costs for recalls so they're worth it in tons of situations.
I mean, think about a company that has really shitty cars and just doesn't do any recalls because they'd rather fight in court. They would be the safest company there is by your method.
I'm with you that recalls isn't really a good measure, and your explanation for why opens up how I think Tesla needs to be evaluated on safety. Elon has said it himself, Tesla is more valuable because of the software rather than the hardware. That's what all the investors are banking on. So the safety of the cars shouldn't be solely based on the hardware of the vehicle but also the software, specifically that means including accidents resulting from AutoPilot or any other features Tesla incorporates, the not even close to full, "Full Self Driving" feature as well.
Now whether or not in the greater context that makes Tesla a less safe vehicle than others I am not trying to make that claim as it's a very complex topic that requires tons of research to make those comparisons.
If you bring back in the hardware aspect, it's also worth considering that all of these cars that are supposedly very safe are generally only safer for the occupant of the vehicle and often say nothing about the safety of others. Electric vehicles, and Tesla being one of the more popular ones early in the game, have a few key benefits over other vehicles in terms of occupant safety, like having a massive battery that provides a low center of gravity. Any non-electric vehicle getting hit by an electric vehicle is probably going to be at a disadvantage especially if they're of similar vehicle size.
Overall I think talking about occupant safety of vehicles without context or pretending that it's somehow inherently superior to others based on typical safety measurements is a fairly selfish look at vehicles considering that safety can be externalizing the damage onto others so that corporations can sell more vehicles.
I realize your initial comment was in response to someone faulting Tesla over their safety record, and they defended their comment by using the flawed approach to evaluating safety, I'm simply replying to this comment because it's the most recent in the chain and it started the meta evaluation of safety.
I definitely get what you're saying, but I don't really think it's fully relevant in this conversation because this is about occupant safety. Very few people buy a car because it's safer for other people. Tens or even hundreds of millions of people choose cars based on its occupant safety. Government regulations are important for non-occupant safety.
The software aspect is relevant to occupant safety. With regards to safety other than occupants, it's relevant in the sense that government regulation comes about because the people they represent know about the issue, understand the issue, and encourage representatives to give a damn about it. So whether or not it's reasonable that an individual has the ability to express concern for non-occupant safety through purchases, individuals still need to know about it just the same in order for regulation to come about.
2021: Tesla Model Y achieves highest possible IIHS safety rating
2023: Dark Side Of Tesla Autopilot: NHTSA Data Reveals 736 Crashes, 17 Deaths
I think it's an example of Goodhart's law - "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure"
there are objective measurements for crash-safety, and Tesla maxed those out, because they designed their cars to do so.
but there are not yet objective tests of self-driving safety to the same degree as there are with the IIHS crash ratings. so we're left with subjective anecdotes, such as videos showing self-driving trying to turn left in front of an oncoming train among many others.
if you look only at the objective crash-safety data, it's easy to conclude that Teslas are extremely safe. if you consider the more subjective anecdotes showing "full self-driving" being dangerous, or doors being difficult to open during a fire, and so on, the picture of Tesla's safety is much more ambiguous.
Not to be callous, but 17 deaths is nothing over several years. There were about 40,000 traffic fatalities each year that those 17 deaths covered! 17 is less than a rounding error!
I think you're right that there are ways to look at it that make things more ambiguous, but there are objective ways. I cannot for the life of me find the numbers, but passenger deaths per unit distance would be one objective--if imperfect--way that does not have any ambiguity.
no, you're missing the point I was making.
there will always be a subjective element to safety. it is not possible to remove subjectivity and rely solely on objective measurements. trying to do so is misguided.
it's necessary to look at both objective and subjective data. you expect them to broadly point in the same direction. if they disagree, you want to look into why. are the subjective anecdotes captured within the objective measurements, or do they represent phenomena outside what the objective testing covers?
with Tesla, you have objective data like IIHS crash ratings that points towards "super duper safe" like you're claiming, and anecdotal data (like the "Full Self Driving tries to turn in front of an oncoming train" I linked to) that points in a very different direction. it's necessary to reconcile those and figure out why they disagree.
the overall impression when you take both of them into account is, as I said, cars that are very safe in a crash test, and unsafe in rather absurd ways when not considering the narrow circumstances of crash tests.
for another example, I linked to an article above where someone's Model Y caught fire unexpectedly.
when you're hell-bent at looking only at objective data, you would want to compare the rates of the Model Y catching fire compared to other cars. maybe they're lower, maybe they're higher, maybe they're about the same. it doesn't really matter, because the point I'm making is that you can't look only at the objective data like that.
subjectively, after his car caught fire, he couldn't open the door and had to kick out a window.
from the Model Y manual:
so there's the "normal" door open button, and a separate mechanism you use only in an emergency (such as the car being on fire)
every other car I've ever ridden in, there's one door release lever, and it works the same whether or not the car is currently on fire. Tesla "innovated" having two door release levers, the normal one, and then an extra one which you shouldn't use under normal circumstances, but which may be necessary to use if the car is on fire.
this is pretty basic human-factors stuff - in an emergency, adrenaline and muscle memory takes over. most drivers in that situation probably aren't going to remember the emergency-door-release (if they know about it at all, either from thoroughly reading the owner's manual or from a mention of it at the dealership when they took delivery).
he was able to kick out the window and escape, so that's good. but what if he hadn't been able to? what if, for example, he had gotten into a crash that broke one of his legs, prior to the car catching fire? in that case, he might have shown up in your objective statistics as a death due to smoke inhalation or fire. you would need to look at the subjective circumstances of the crash to realize that it would have been an entirely preventable death if he had been able to open the door and hobble away.
oh, and it gets better. quoting from the Model Y manual again:
at this point I am quite comfortable with subjectively calling the Model Y an unsafe death trap piece of shit.
first off, why the amateur-hour fuck is the manual release for the rear doors an optional feature?
suppose that guy had been riding with people in the backseat when the car caught fire. why does their safety depend on optional equipment?
even if it was equipped with the optional feature - what is the likelihood that the passengers know this secret rear-door release procedure?
and again, this is entirely decoupled from objective data. in theory, you could pull up statistics on "how many people, in what make & model of car, have been trapped in the rear seats of a burning car and unable to exit". in practice...who cares. the number is probably 0. if it's non-zero, it's going to be so small that you can't meaningfully interpolate it into a statistic. and that number should be zero, because it's a scenario that should be impossible. the mere fact that it's possible in a Tesla shows that they're unsafe.
you can subjectively tell this car is unsafe just by reading the owner's manual.
Yes...that's why they're objective. I don't give a rat's ass if I'm more likely to be trapped in a car in some extremely rare situations if I'm less likely to be injured or killed in the first place. Your ranting frankly reads to me like the people who say they don't wear seatbelts because the seatbelt might trap them in a burning car. Yeah, both the seatbelt and forgetting about the emergency release (which is so obvious--if you aren't in a situation causing panic to override your brain's normal function--that most passengers automatically pull it to get out of the car instead of pressing the button), but the seatbelt will save your life about a million times before it causes you to die in a fire, and the same might be true of Teslas' safety features. You can't just say something is a death trap because you don't understand it.
The manual release for the Model Y is not optional. The only physical options for Teslas are color and performance level (speed/range). You are right that it is a stupid system, though.
I do not understand your point. Safety isn't "obscure things are possible." I was going to come up with an equivalent example in your logic, but there actually is no equivalent because when I tried to follow that same logic, I found that there was no logic unless you say that everything is unsafe. There are millions...billions...frankly, infinite factors that play into vehicle safety. To completely count a vehicle as unsafe because of one suboptimal component would render every vehicle as a horrifying death trap.
You could seriously do this with anything. I dislike Tesla as a company and Elon Musk as much as pretty much anybody, but I don't see why you are so focused on this.
I have no idea where you're getting this comparison from.
the owner's manual on Tesla's website says otherwise:
who should I believe?
my point is that a system should fail safely, even in the presence of "obscure things" happening.
for example, if you've flown on an airline, I'm sure you've heard the flight attendant briefing about locating your nearest emergency exits etc.
modern airlines are extremely safe. but they still have the emergency exits. they still require that pre-flight briefing to be given before every single flight. they still require people seated in exit rows to meet requirements for being able to assist in an emergency.
and in order to be certified, aircraft must be able to be evacuated in under 90 seconds via the emergency exits. not just that, but evacuated with a full passenger load, with half the exits blocked or unusable. you can watch a video of this test being done on an Airbus A380. in an attempt to make the test as realistic as possible, they block the exits at random, with the test passengers not knowing which exits are blocked beforehand. and they conduct it with the cabin lights out, and with a minimum of 35% of the passengers being over 50 years old (in other words, no cheating on the test by having nothing but 20 year old college students as passengers).
the crucial thing is you don't just say "oh, aircraft are super safe and almost never crash, so it's fine and I'm sure people will be able to exit". you also game out "assume a crash does happen, and people need to evacuate. can they do it safely and quickly?" and you go even further than that, and say "assume whatever caused the crash also blocked some of the emergency exits. can they evacuate in 90 seconds with only half the exits available?"
that's the point I'm making that you're still missing. you shouldn't just say "oh, Teslas rarely catch fire so it's fine". you need to go further and consider "if it does catch fire, how safe is it while it's on fire?"
with a Tesla, "if it catches fire, the passengers in the rear seats might be trapped and unable to open the doors" is just inherently unsafe. there is no amount of "oh but the car probably won't catch fire in the first place" that makes up for it.
when you say things like:
the problem is that you are looking at safety as a one-dimensional thing. either the car catches fire or it doesn't. either the plane crashes or it doesn't.
safety is inherently multi-dimensional. when a plane crashes, how safe it it to escape from? when a plane crashes and some of the emergency exits are blocked, is it still safe to escape from? likewise, when a car catches fire, how safe is it to escape from?
Okay, this is starting to feel like one of those encounters on reddit where I'm just trying to correct misconceptions and the other person decides to turn it into an argument so I'm going to disengage.
And trust me, I know what you're saying--but an airplane without emergency exits is still safer than a car with doors that fail safe. Things can exist in multiple dimensions while still being comparable--someone who moved two feet to the right and ten thousand miles forward moved farther than someone who moved five feet in each direction.
have you considered that "trying to correct misconceptions" can easily come off at patronizing, condescending, and argumentative?
you're reaching conclusions about my intentions that I don't think you have any evidence for.
Another good subjective take for you and @updawg: How do cars fare in crash tests they're not designed for.
While its not a be-all, end all, only 1 Tesla model made it on the 2023 top list, and they made some significant changes to the standards this year. Before almost all of theirs were.
Also, you look at collision losses and Tesla comes out far worse than average. This tells me there's a disconnect between "rated safety" and "actual safety".
Subaru by contrast comes out way ahead of the pack.
Take a look at this render: https://i.imgur.com/fWGLZfG.jpg
they're not rendering bolts in it, but you can see how many parts are involved in the frame, and you can also see that there are very few bolt holes or places where bolts might fit. There's a lot of welding involved, and it's not easy to swap out parts.
Frame damage in normal cars is already generally considered a total loss.
There are definitely folks who will use donor cars and repair this sort of damage under a salvage title, but it's impossible to get it as good as original.
Ah, if this is mostly replacing welded parts, then I can see where the repairability of those particular parts isn't affected. The repairability is already virtually non-existent for those parts. But any further replacement of bolts by welds will further reduce repairability, which is definitely unfortunaten for consumers. I definitely evaluate repairability when I buy something.
Telsas already take months to get repaired.
I don't want bottoming-out on a steep driveway to total my car.
Could you go into more detail? I see $100/year more on average floating around, which does not seem significantly higher.
This article says
I'm sure it widely varies, probably from state to state. But we talked about it at work, and our staff either electric vehicles were all paying pretty significantly more than those that drove gas ones. The common reason seems to be that it doesn't take much to total an electric vehicle. Remember the guy who found that a minor bumper repair on his Rivian was going to be $42k? That's obviously an extreme situation, but the overall issue still stands.
As the article points out, electric cars are more expensive so it makes sense that they also cost more to insure. It might be interesting to compare cars with the same purchase price, but they probably wouldn’t be equivalent in other ways.
emphasis added:
"reinvents" and "breakthrough" in the headline seem to be unjustified hype, given this detail. they have not publicly unveiled a model that uses this manufacturing technique, much less delivered that model to any customers.
the author also uses weasel words throughout:
It honestly sounds more like a Tesla press release than any kind of actual reportage.
As controversial as Elon Musk is - Tesla really has been a pioneer in a lot of different ways. This article reminds me of a similar interview that Kara Swisher did with Elon (before they became estranged) when she had a NY Times podcast called Sway.
It was a few years back, but I remember specifically the intense focus Musk was putting into Tesla at the time to try to keep it alive. From the interview:
There was another podcast that I can't find where Musk was talking about trying to "build the machine that builds that car", referring to manufacturing and the supply chain issues related to it. There was so much focus on production that he (and others) were calling it production hell. In part, this was because every mistake, every inefficiency was a compounding problem as they worked to ramp up production. Supply chain delays were about ~6 months for some parts, so there was a really long tail for each mistake.
The whole thing was really interesting, and separately it's an interesting point that a real car company hasn't come about and not gone bankrupt when trying to compete with the incumbents.
It can be hard to tell from the outside how much is real and how much is hype. This stuff does matter if you’re an investor, but I don’t think it’s a good idea to bet on individual stocks.
Car buyers mostly care about the end result: are they better cars, and/or cheaper cars? How good is the service? Are they still going to be around?
The “bet the company” stuff isn’t a good sign if you’re concerned about longevity, but I guess it worked out for them so far. It remains to be seen if one of Musk’s companies can stop swinging for the fences and settle down.
There's a lot of parallels between Tesla and SpaceX in this regard. The majority of publicity SpaceX gets these days is focused pretty squarely on individual prototype vehicles, but those are almost a by-product of the primary focal point which is figuring out the manufacturing process and ruthlessly streamlining it so that not just prototypes, but eventually also the final product can be manufactured quickly, consistently, and cost-effectively.
This takes the typical tall step of productionization and smooths it into a gradual ramp. It also makes loss of prototypes comparatively painless, because they're "cattle, not pets" and effectively disposable.
The difference in the companies almost seems to be a willingness to back the risk until it breaks through a critical point. The incumbents in the space are risk adverse and when they do take risks or try to innovate the runway for success before a course change seems to be small.
Tesla can't develop a car from the ground up in four years as it is. They're not going to leapfrog other auto manufacturers that easily.
I'm also incredulous because Tesla has brought 4 different car models to the market over it's 20 year lifespan (plus the semi?) vs other auto makers each bringing a few dozen models to mass production in that same timeframe.
Norihiko Shirouzu
3D printing
Tailor-made alloys
Obstacles
Link to the archived version
Here's an article from Hackaday in response to this article https://hackaday.com/2023/09/16/a-die-cast-car-subframe-pushing-the-limit-too-far/
Wording of articles like this bother me. They make it sound like Elon is down there on the floor with engineers planning and optimizing manufacturing processes. All the work is done by either Tesla or Elon. Not engineers. Not teams of people with expertise, school and knowledge. Not hard working employees. Its all Elon Musk. Cool.
So they have brought back the unibody of the 70s?
No, they maybe could potentially be getting close to the uniunderbody!
never left.
the OP needs to read up on 'unibody'. this is nothing new, straight forward evolution in manufacturing.