backtop


Print 100 comment(s) - last by Nexing.. on Aug 24 at 12:13 PM

Tesla received a combined rating of 5.4 stars

Tesla Motors recently received the highest safety rating ever from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA).

NHTSA gave Tesla's Model S a five-star safety rating in each individual category and overall, achieving a combined rating of 5.4 stars. This is the highest rating ever given by the U.S. agency. 

This is a big deal, considering NHTSA only gives about 1 percent of cars tested a five-star rating in every category.

According to Tesla, it grabbed such a high rating for a few different reasons. For starters, the Model S doesn't have a large engine block, which means there's a longer crumple zone to "absorb" a high-speed crash. The motor is only about a foot in diameter and is near the rear axle while the front has a second trunk.

For the rear crash test, Tesla made sure to protect occupants in the third row of the vehicle with a double bumper that can take a highway speed impact. 

Tesla added that the Model S was about 50 percent better than its competitors in the rollover test. In fact, the Model S didn't roll over at all through normal methods; it took unique situations to actually turn it over, and Tesla said this is because the battery is mounted below the floor pan for a low center of gravity. 

 

A particularly difficult test to pass, according to Tesla, is the side pole intrusion test, and the Model S was the only vehicle to get a "good" rating in that category among the other top 1 percent of the vehicles tested. This was due to the use of multiple deep aluminum extrusions in the side rail of the Model S, which absorb the impact energy and send the load to the rest of the car. 

For those who are worried about battery fires, the Model S' battery was fine before, during and after testing. 

But perhaps the most interesting part of the testing was when the Model S' roof broke the machine for roof crush protection. Check this out:

"Of note, during validation of Model S roof crush protection at an independent commercial facility, the testing machine failed at just above 4 g's," said Tesla. "While the exact number is uncertain due to Model S breaking the testing machine, what this means is 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. This is achieved primarily through a center (B) pillar reinforcement attached via aerospace grade bolts."

Tesla is undoubtedly a superhero in the American electric vehicle (EV) industry. It started out with a $465 million loan from the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) in June 2009. The loan, which was part of the Advanced Technology Vehicles Manufacturing program, was to be repaid by 2022. But in March 2013, Tesla received permission to pay the loan back five years early by mid-2017. 

But in May of this year, Tesla has repaid the whole sum -- nine years earlier than expected from the original 2022 due date.

Clearly, Tesla is making money. For Q2 2013, Tesla reported a loss of $30.5 million (26 cents a share), which was much narrower than the $105.6 million ($1 a share) loss in the year-ago quarter. The automaker had an adjusted profit of 22 cents, which beat expectations of a non-GAAP loss of 17 cents. In the year-ago quarter, Tesla reported a profit loss of 89 cents. 

Revenue jumped to $405.1 million compared to just $26.7 million in the year-ago quarter. Analysts expected a revenue of $383 million for Q2 2013. 


Tesla has also started showing off new tech that could transform the electric auto industry. In June, Tesla unveiled a convenient alternative to waiting for a Model S to charge -- battery swapping. The idea behind battery swapping is to easily open the car chassis to pull the battery out and replace it with a fully charged one. This saves the driver from having to wait for their battery to charge before traveling.
 
Tesla is also working on a charging system that would get drivers out of the Supercharger stations and back on the road with a full charge in just 5 minutes.

Source: Tesla Motors



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By boeush on 8/20/2013 7:44:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nowhere in that document does it say that the Government can INVEST in anything.
Nor does it say anywhere in that document that government is prohibited from investing in anything. And it's not like government had traditionally never invested on behalf of the nation. Major historical examples include the Louisiana and Alaska purchases, the transcontinental railroads, things like the Panama Canal and the Hoover Dam, etc.
quote:
They do that ... because of the ignorance and apathy of the American public.
I beg to differ. I think a majority of the American public is both aware and supportive of such strategic national investments.

On the other hand:
quote:
They are supposed to provide for defense.
True, but where in the Constitution does it say that defense spending must eclipse that of all other developed nations in the world, combined? Where and how in the Constitution is "defense" redefined as "offence"? Where in the Constitution is "defense" formulated as active projection of power onto opposite hemispheres, in pursuit of geopolitical and/or economic advantage? Where is "defense" formulated in terms of "nation-building" or "regime change"? And where is "common defense" Constitutionally equated to defense or advancement of corporate multinational interests?

If you're going to argue that the Feds have stretched and distorted their Constitutional mandate on other issues, you would be a hypocrite not to admit that among the worst and most egregious distortions of all, ranks the present and ever-growing cancerous malignancy of the military-industrial complex coupled to national security police state...

Incidentally, according to the Constitution as written and strictly interpreted in historical context, the Feds aren't supposed to maintain a standing professional army, at all . At best they might coordinate "A well regulated Militia" (per the Second Amendment) that would consist of armed civilians (i.e. "the people" with the right "to keep and bear Arms".)

So, just how strictly shall we insist on interpreting the Constitution? And how consistent shall we be in applying our absolute and unbendable principles?


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Spuke on 8/21/2013 1:29:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
True, but where in the Constitution does it say that defense spending must eclipse that of all other developed nations in the world, combined?
And where in the Constitution does it say they can spend on anything they damn well please?

quote:
So, just how strictly shall we insist on interpreting the Constitution? And how consistent shall we be in applying our absolute and unbendable principles?
Fed power is explicitly stated. There is no grey area here, what the Feds don't get, the States do. The States can do whatever their voters want (within law and etc.). The Fed gets no such privilege.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By boeush on 8/21/2013 4:09:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
And where in the Constitution does it say they can spend on anything they damn well please?
Again, where does it say that they can't?
quote:
Fed power is explicitly stated. There is no grey area here, what the Feds don't get, the States do.
Power, yes. But there are no limits on their discretionary spending or administrative policies. That is, the Feds can't overrule the States on issues where the Constitution doesn't grant the Feds the power to do so. However, that doesn't and has never historically stopped the Feds from doing things not explicitly stipulated in the Constitution.

For instance, the Constitution contains no mention of the IRS, the Federal Reserve, the Department of Defense, the Department of Agriculture, Department of the Interior, Department of Transportation, Department of State (the oldest one, in place since 1789), or any other Federal departments and/or their respective functions. It contains no mention of NASA, CIA, FBI, FDA, NSA, SEC, CFTC, FCC, EPA, FAA, NIH, NIST, NNSA, FERC, the Pentagon, or any other Federal agencies or their functions.

The view that the Feds can only do anything that's explicitly stated in the Constitution, is patently erroneous and utterly dysfunctional. Under that view, one could never create a coherent nation (or Republic, if you like) capable of exercising its sovereignty either domestically or on the international stage. It's a prescription for a loose Confederation, which was tried and utterly failed, just prior to the crafting of the second (current) U.S. Constitution (have you ever studied American history?)

Micromanagement of Federal functions was never the intent behind the Constitution, and the Constitution was crafted with explicit and stated understanding that it is a legal framework for governance, not an exact procedural prescription (as it is impossible to anticipate and accommodate for all future needs and practical exigencies in advance, which would anyway bloat the Constitution into tens of thousands of pages if even attempted, thereby rendering it unusable.) To work out the details of governance is what the Legislative Branch is for in the first place! (By the way, have you ever taken a class in government or civics back in High School?)

The Constitution considers only the very broad matters of rights, powers, and democratic processes. It is neither a prescription for nor a blanket restriction against policy. Where policy does not conflict with enumerated powers (and whether such conflicts arise is ultimately up to the Supreme Court to decide), that policy is allowed by the Constitution.

And incidentally, this isn't a new debate. It's been discussed by much smarter and more knowledgeable people than you and I, for well over 200 years now.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 2:48:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Nor does it say anywhere in that document that government is prohibited from investing in anything


And here is where you people completely and utterly fail basic Constitutional awareness.

The Constitution doesn't need to prohibit the activity. The function of the Constitution is to spell out the responsibilities and authorities of our elected Representatives, Congress, and the Government.

Translation: If "that document" doesn't specifically grant Congress the power to invest in the free market with public money, that action is Unconstitutional by default.

The 10'th Amendment, that pesky technicality us Conservatives and Libertarians are always quoting, is pretty clear:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people"


Also what you people call "investment" in EV's is Unconstitutional, it's cronyism. This is also clearly spelled out in the injunction against titles of nobility in article nine section one of the Constitution. The Government granted tax dollars and favors to Tesla and other companies, and gave them a leg up over others. This is an example of what the Constitution was meant to prohibit.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By boeush on 8/21/2013 4:24:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If "that document" doesn't specifically grant Congress the power to invest in the free market with public money, that action is Unconstitutional by default
To publicly and flagrantly abuse language and common sense by calling this a "power", which then allows you to erect your argumentative house of cards, is your prerogative. But this is not a power by any reasonable interpretation. The power to issue law, enforce law, sign treaties, collect taxes and tariffs, issue currency, wage war, etc. -- these are powers. The choice of how to structure or appropriate Federal budgetary line items is not a power, it's a detail of governance. See my more detailed reply to Spuke above...

And oh by the way, there is no mention of the "free market" or anything even close to that, even tangentially, anywhere in the Constitution. So Federal acts of meddling in the free market (or even more broadly, any Federal attempts to engineer the economy) are perfectly Constitutional in the sense that they present no conflict with anything in the Constitution. Regardless of whether you or I ideologically like that or not...
quote:
...the injunction against titles of nobility ... Government granted tax dollars and favors to Tesla and other companies, and gave them a leg up over others.
Now you're off the deep end. There is absolutely no connection between titles of nobility and cronyism. Yes, both are undesirable. But while Nobility is unconstitutional in America, cronyism and corruption have always been around, before, during, and after the crafting of the Constitution.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 4:54:51 PM , Rating: 2
Meh you're just a big pile of collectivist crap. Using whatever broad and fictional interpretations you need to create to justify your nonsense.

You will find no authority in the Constitution granting the Government authority to regulate any commerce they see fit. The "free market" doesn't have to be specifically mentioned.

And if you want to use the much-raped "Commerce clause" to back up your position, well that's your prerogative as well. Most sensible people know it was never intended, or actually worded, to grant Congress ultimate authority over the country.

quote:
Now you're off the deep end. There is absolutely no connection between titles of nobility and cronyism.


And you're absolutely wrong. You're just another ignorant person who ignores the meaning of the Constitution because the wording doesn't match exactly our times and culture. When it's clear what the intent of the document is clear.

You're like those who argue we have no right to travel because the Constitution doesn't specifically mention vehicles, trains, planes etc etc.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By boeush on 8/21/2013 5:25:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You will find no authority in the Constitution granting the Government authority to regulate any commerce they see fit.
Again, neither will you find there a prohibition to that effect.

Your problem is, you're trying to twist the Constitution into a weapon for your politics. The solution to your problem, is to leave the Constitution unmolested and simply pursue your politics. Congress (representing the will of the people) made all these laws and regulations that you disagree with. You can argue as to the merits of the laws and regulations, and work to change them via the Congressional route. But you won't succeed in arguing that these things are invalid ipso facto due to some Constitutional conflict that doesn't exist (if it did, the Supreme Court would've ruled accordingly, in most of these cases many decades ago...)
quote:
You're just another ignorant person who ignores the meaning of the Constitution
Oh, OK. Please enlighten me, then, regarding how federal cash flowing to specific domestic companies somehow grants investors in those companies hereditary titles that endow them and all of their offspring in perpetuity (until/unless explicitly stripped by royal decree) with lands, property, rights, and privileges above those of ordinary peasants. Or perhaps, you might explain how above-mentioned federal cash amounts to bribes by foreign nations to our federal politicians...


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 5:33:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Again, neither will you find there a prohibition to that effect.


Again, you fail.

The Constitution isn't a list of things the Government can't do. It's a list of things it can. If it's not specifically granted that authority, it falls under the 10'th Amendment and by definition isn't Constitutional. This is basic basic stuff!

"The Tenth Amendment, which makes explicit the idea that the federal government is limited to only the powers granted in the Constitution , has been declared to be truism by the Supreme Court."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_th...

Basically you're making up that the Government has all these powers. You're lying or just THAT ignorant.

Also you're arguing that because our courts and Congress routinely make law things that don't pass Constitutional muster, it means these are de-facto Constitutional and that I'm inherently wrong for questioning them.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By boeush on 8/21/2013 6:04:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Basically you're making up that the Government has all these powers.
No, I'm simply being careful to distinguish (constitutional) powers from (executive) agencies and (legislative) regulations. Not equivalent concepts, at all. A power enables you to do something. The act of doing something is not in itself a power, it is only a specific application of powers.

You call the act of regulating something a power. I call it what it is: an act of the legislature issuing law, combined with the act of the executive branch implementing law. Now, according to the 10th Amendment the federal government has absolutely no right (beyond enumerated exceptions) to meddle in internal affairs of states. However, when it comes to cross-state (national) or international issues, the federal government has every right to meddle as it sees fit (because in such cases, neither the states nor the individual citizenry have the proper jurisdiction.) And like it or not, the more mobile and connected the nation and the world become, the more expansive grows the Constitutionally valid scope of federal influence over policy -- because an ever-larger fraction of our mundane everyday activities begin to either cross state and even international boundaries, or to become vitally dependent upon interstate and international infrastructures, standardization, and coordination.
quote:
Also you're arguing that because our courts and Congress routinely make law things that don't pass Constitutional muster
When that happens, upon attempt at implementation such laws are challenged by people (like you) and struck down by the constitutional courts (and incidentally, courts do not and cannot make law; they have only the power to interpret law.) Yes, the federal circuit and supreme courts do sometimes make mistakes, but on the whole they're right far more often than they're wrong.

Yet you are effectively claiming that they are fundamentally mistaken over perhaps 90% of all federal laws on the books (some of such laws dating back to almost the origins of the Constitution itself, and most such laws being decades-old.) Amazingly, you somehow fail to perceive the sheer absurdity of your stance...


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 6:38:51 PM , Rating: 2
The Constitution was largely built on the premise of sovereign statehood. Now you're saying it either doesn't exist, or cannot function in a modern society. Okay, whatever.

Then you go on to pretend that the courts can/have reviewed even a fraction of the laws on the books, more of which are added every day.

quote:
Yes, the federal circuit and supreme courts do sometimes make mistakes, but on the whole they're right far more often than they're wrong.


It only takes a few wrong rulings to screw the entire country by setting a dangerous legal precedent. For example the 1942 Wickard v. Filburn ruling, which began our reign of Congressional tyranny through the Commerce Clause, and of course the "Affordable Care Act" ruling.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By boeush on 8/21/2013 7:17:16 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Constitution was largely built on the premise of sovereign statehood. Now you're saying it either doesn't exist, or cannot function in a modern society.
In a sense, yes. That question was actually settled back during the Reconstruction era. But in the modern world, this is even more the case for a whole slew of new and additional reasons.

The Constitution and our form of government were, and remain, an ongoing experiment. Most of the underlying theories and axioms held up reasonably well in practice, while some proved unworkable. Some of it was fixed through constitutional amendments, some was addressed simply by considering contemporary context when interpreting the Constitution, and the rest remain as ongoing problems. In other words, the system has mostly functioned as-designed, learning from its past experiences and adapting to a changing world. That's good, not bad.
quote:
you go on to pretend that the courts can/have reviewed even a fraction of the laws on the books
But they've certainly at least reviewed (on multiple occasions, from multiple angles) the laws you especially care about. We both know that.
quote:
It only takes a few wrong rulings to screw the entire country by setting a dangerous legal precedent.
And if the people really do disagree with them en masse, it only takes one constitutional amendment to reverse such rulings...
quote:
1942 Wickard v. Filburn ruling
It's odd, I agree, yet undeniably logical within constitutional constraints. It's an example of something that was unforeseen by the Framers, and could be easily fixed by a constitutional amendment clarifying the scope of what is meant by interstate commerce, and what type of activities are considered to be regulation thereof.
quote:
and of course the "Affordable Care Act" ruling
Yes, I agree that was a strange ruling, not least because it was argued in a strange manner. This one is clearly not a matter of penalty, but is indeed a tax treatment. Yet a perfectly Constitutional one, or else all the various tax deduction rules currently in effect (like mortgage interest, paid rent, business expense, marriage, per-child, etc.; again, many of them decades old) would have to be abolished for the crime of encouraging (or discouraging) various types of economic and/or personal choices by imposing varying tax burdens accordingly. Oh well; right decision (IMO), wrong way of getting there...


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki