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 FITCamaro on 8/21/2013 12:06:04 AM , Rating: 1
As does yours:

quote:
In an absolute sense, or within limits? For instance, I don't think anyone should be allowed to drive tanks: the weight plus the tracks will ruin pretty much any road they touch... There are other considerations as well that have to do with general welfare: excessive toxic emissions out of the tailpipe or excessively leaking oil/coolant fluids, for instance, or excessive engine noise, or being unsafe to operate for whatever reason. In other words, it is perfectly within the government's role to protect other people from damage you might cause them through your choice of vehicle (or really, through any other choices.)


No one is asking to drive a tank. Let's be real here. But if I, a consumer, choose to buy and drive a semi-truck every day, I should be able to.

And there are plenty of states that allow vehicles to be on the road that are death traps. It sucks but that kind of comes down to what do you want to force? Furthermore, those are states doing those things. Not the FEDERAL government. Now as far as emissions you may deem as dangerous, where is the federal government's authority to regulate such a thing? It doesn't exist. The general welfare clause was never meant to mean every good idea (a subjective term on a topic if there ever was one). If the federal government wants to regulate that, Congress should pass a Constitutional amendment to do so. Or the states can call a convention to do so.

quote:
Completely off-topic, but since you brought it up, the government is involved because it chooses to impose special privileges and benefits, as well as obligations, on married people (e.g. tax savings, parental/visitation/medical/estate rights, child care/child support, etc.) For the purposes of conferring these privileges and obligations, government must necessarily define what it means by "marriage". This is a purely secular (non-religious) matter, in particular as it must apply to all irrespective of specific religion or lack thereof, and as such operates and applies only within the secular spheres of governance. Apropos:


Yes and all those tax incentives should disappear in the eyes of the federal government. They shouldn't care if you're married. It should only be doing what its Constitutionally allowed to do and taxing everyone equally for that. States should be more involved. All the federal government should have a say in is federal employees. Where they absolutely have discretion to make up whatever rules they want for benefits they provide. I think though that you should be able to designate whoever you want for things like visitation rights or beneficiary. Marriage or no marriage. I don't see why the issue of marriage has to be brought into those things at all at the federal level. States can choose to be more strict if they want to though.

quote:
You're right, and the government wasn't and isn't trying to do any such thing. If you heard otherwise, then you were being lied to (and I'd take it up with your 'sources'.) Government can and must define marriage only and purely in terms of a civil institution (because the government's sphere of activity encompasses the civil repercussions of marriage and procreation.) To those who insist that marriage is an entirely religious institution, I always pose this question: should atheists or agnostics be prohibited from marrying? To those who insist that marriage makes sense only in the context of procreation, I ask this: are infertile (or otherwise incapable of reproduction -- e.g. through injury, disease, or old age) people allowed to marry, and is there no such thing as a marriage of convenience or a marriage in absence of sexual relations?


Bullshit they're not. The current administration is telling Christian chaplains in the military that they have to perform a service for whoever wants it. No matter the beliefs of their faith. No they're not saying that the church has to recognize the marriage. But they're absolutely trying to make the view that if you refuse to marry a couple, regardless of sexual orientation, that you're a bigot.

You also act like marriage has always been something the state or federal government was always involved in. As I said before, the federal government shouldn't care if one is married or not. States can but really don't need to either with a tax like the Fair Tax.

Why should two people need permission from the state though to marry? Marriage licenses originally came about to prevent minorities from marrying. Two people, through a church or otherwise, should just be able to take vows and be married. To the state and federal government that shouldn't matter. People can handle their property on their own. Just require notarized documents for things to be valid in the event of a dispute.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Spuke on 8/21/2013 1:34:55 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Why should two people need permission from the state though to marry? Marriage licenses originally came about to prevent minorities from marrying. Two people, through a church or otherwise, should just be able to take vows and be married. To the state and federal government that shouldn't matter. People can handle their property on their own. Just require notarized documents for things to be valid in the event of a dispute.
Interesting thoughts FIT. Thanks for posting that. Never thought of it that way.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By FITCamaro on 8/21/2013 7:56:45 AM , Rating: 2
Well just think about it. In the days of the founders, you didn't run off to the government to register your marriage. You were just married and the community accepted it. People's affairs through transfer of property was all handled through wills and documents that were properly registered.

Now obviously the states have the right to regulate marriage however they see fit (and inversely the federal government has absolutely none). But again, I say why should they have to? Imagine the savings at both levels of government if they didn't care if we were married.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By boeush on 8/21/2013 5:03:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But if I, a consumer, choose to buy and drive a semi-truck every day, I should be able to.
And so you are.
quote:
Now as far as emissions you may deem as dangerous, where is the federal government's authority to regulate such a thing? It doesn't exist.
I think it goes without saying that something states are inherently incapable of regulating in a reasonable fashion, falls back to the federal government. Emission standards on vehicles are a perfect example of such a thing.

To see what I mean, consider what it would be like if there was no common federal standard, and every state set its own rules and limits. Consider what it would cost for manufacturers and retailers to comply with this chaotic patchwork of regulation. Consider what happens when a vehicle crosses the border from one state into another. Consider the incredible economic and bureaucratic redundancies and burdens that would be inflicted all across the nation, as well as on interstate and international commerce in cars and car parts.

Now beyond that, also consider the fact that certain types of pollution (including air and water/groundwater) have a tendency of not remaining within the borders of any particular state. Anything that involves impacts across states (as opposed to purely intra-state), is automatically a federal matter as no single state has complete jurisdiction over such things.
quote:
If the federal government wants to regulate that, Congress should pass a Constitutional amendment to do so.
Not really. It is sufficient for Congress to pass a law. That is, after all, what Congress is primarily designed and intended to do.
quote:
I don't see why the issue of marriage has to be brought into those things at all at the federal level.
Again, because no single state has full jurisdiction in the matter. For instance, consider the case of wife and husband living in different states. Consider issues of medical access, parental rights, estate, child care and welfare, etc. and so on when applied across state boundaries and across multiple states at a time. The issues involved with marriage and parentage are not anywhere nearly as simple as just taxes. A flat tax would not make all these other factors go away.
quote:
The current administration is telling Christian chaplains in the military that they have to perform a service for whoever wants it. No matter the beliefs of their faith.
But that's more than a little different than imposing government's will on the general citizenry, isn't it?

When you sign up for military service, you agree to severe limitations upon your Constitutional rights over the duration of your service. You abrogate your rights to free speech, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, your fourth amendment rights, etc. So, sometimes your religion may conflict with what you're ordered to do (e.g. to violate, in cold blood and with premeditation, the Commandment not to murder...), but that's just a fact of life in the service. Back in the days of conscription, there was the option of Conscientious Objector status; with an all-volunteer military is's basically a case of selling your soul to the devil, and living with the consequences...
quote:
You also act like marriage has always been something the state or federal government was always involved in.
So what? The government was not always involved with regulation of electricity or airspace, either. Yet, here we are. Times change. We aren't a tiny little backwater with a handful of mostly-rural and self-sufficient people any longer; we're a highly-integrated modern 300 million strong industrialized nation. The rules of the Wild West don't and can't work in the modern context.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 5:15:00 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
So what? The government was not always involved with regulation of electricity or airspace, either. Yet, here we are. Times change. We aren't a tiny little backwater with a handful of mostly-rural and self-sufficient people any longer; we're a highly-integrated modern 300 million strong industrialized nation. The rules of the Wild West don't and can't work in the modern context.


Translation:

There should be no limits on Government power. Because we're like, big and stuff, and have err high integration and the like.

Well at least you came out and admitted what we all knew you were getting at.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By boeush on 8/21/2013 5:35:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There should be no limits on Government power.
Translation: there are no apparent limits to your carrying capacity for crap.

There are obvious Constitutional limits, and furthermore newsflash: you (and all the other people of the nation) constitute the ultimate limit on what Government does or doesn't do. Don't look for the Constitution to do your job for you. And don't be a sore loser when the majority of the country rejects your arguments (and at least try to be a graceful victor when the opposite transpires.)


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 5:46:30 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
There are obvious Constitutional limits, and furthermore newsflash: you (and all the other people of the nation) constitute the ultimate limit on what Government does or doesn't do. Don't look for the Constitution to do your job for you.


Wrong again.

The Founders knew better than anyone the dangers of a pure Democracy and sought to insulate the Government from the whims of the common voter. This is obvious to anyone with a brain and even the most basic study of history. Also they said as much in their own words.

Don't look for the Constitution to do my job for me? What kind of trollish sophomoric bullshit is that anyway? You must have no idea what you're actually saying if you thought that was an appropriate talking point.


RE: Anything Tesla CAN'T do?
By boeush on 8/21/2013 6:17:55 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
The Founders knew better than anyone the dangers of a pure Democracy and sought to insulate the Government from the whims of the common voter.
And so they did, and so it remains. But the government is not completely insulated, so if a large-enough fraction of the common voter expresses their will, the government is obligated to react, and that is so also by design (or would you deny that?)

Also, some of the Founders' motivations might not have been very laudable. They were essentially (for the most part) elitists, looking for mutual security and economic advantage and afraid of their wealth being looted by the rabble. One could even argue that not much has really changed in this regard. But that's somewhat beside the point...
quote:
Don't look for the Constitution to do my job for me? What kind of trollish sophomoric bullshit is that anyway?
Shall I remind you of the manner in which members of Congress or the President get and keep their seats, or shall I rehash the part of the First Amendment dealing with rights to peaceably assemble and petition?


"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone














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