Smashing Roadsters at a thousand frames per second (Video of Tesla crash tests)
Recently, we wrote that Tesla's director of communications enjoyed crashing the company car in Project Gotham Racing 4. How about a taste of the real thing? Below the fold is a video from Gadgetoff 2007 of co-founder and ex-CEO of Tesla, Martin Eberhard, showing crash tests of the Tesla electric sports car. At the beginning of the video, Martin says these videos are the difference between Tesla and companies that make a "three wheel imaginary car that would never be safe on the highway." Could Martin be talking about Zap?
So how much does all this fun footage cost? Martin says the cars cost $350,000 to build and the tests cost another $100,000. The Tesla sells for $100,000 but the cars in the crash tests have equipment added to measure the damage done to the crash test dummies. Martin says Tesla has done about 8 tests; So the video is about a million dollars a minute, give or take a million. These are, of course, hand picked videos done by Tesla but the car looks amazingly safe. Air bags are "freaking amazing" as Martin points out.
[Source: YouTube]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Mort 2:07PM (10/13/2007)
He can't even fill the orders he has, but feels the need to dis three wheel vehicles. I don't like that man. Typical maggot.
Reply
Domenick 3:03PM (10/13/2007)
I didn't like the three wheel dig either. Rather pointless since three wheel vehicles are not his competition.
Other than that though, it was great to see all this crash footage and the hear the "play by play". The 50 mph rear crash was especially impressive. Boom shak a la ka lak!
Reply
Turbofrog 3:45PM (10/13/2007)
And yet, Tesla is the only startup company that has managed to make a completely engineered electric car that is livable on a day-to-day basis. And regardless of any delays, it actually is going into production, unlike the majority of its pseudo-competitors.
I think it's a pretty big accomplishment for a maggot.
Reply
David Fox 4:39PM (10/13/2007)
The Tesla is cool and kudos on safety...but is this really a "GREEN" car anymore than a 10,000 square foot LEED certified house can be called green? MPG is the new MPH...
Reply
Cthulhugus 7:43PM (10/13/2007)
Ummm the Tesla is said the have the equivalent of 135 MPG. Also, there is no greener fuel than solar or wind generated electricity.
Reply
Tony Belding 7:12PM (10/13/2007)
I wonder how the Aptera would fare in crash testing? As a three-wheeler, I don't think it will be required to undergo any.
Reply
GreyFlcn 11:03PM (10/13/2007)
The point being though
Technically the three wheel cars are NOT cars.
They are elaborate motorcycles in the eye of the law.
And are therefore not required to pass these strenuous crash tests.
_
Also frankly, even if Tesla was powered by straight Coal it would be a better alternative than a conventional car in CO2 per mile.
http://greyfalcon.net/plugins3
Reply
Scott 12:43AM (10/14/2007)
Yeah, what is with the three wheel comment? quite a lame comment to begin your own diatribe on how safe you are. Like putting the guy next to you down at the bar when speaking with a chic to make yourself look better. (lame).
Anyway, the real issue is the safety of the structure, and the air-bags. Looking good.
However, sitting that low and in a roadster is NOT the safe route to begin with. Have you ever seen how small a T/Lotus is? And you better be willing to put yourself that close to the road surface. It better be good in crash tests because it is already a tough sell. think not? why do you think SUV's sell so well? storage? mileage? try seating position.
Wonder how this would do in a side-impact.
WS
Reply
Kardax 12:51AM (10/14/2007)
ZAP irritates Tesla in a lot of ways, so hearing Martin Eberhard fire a shot at them is certainly not unexpected. But I agree with everyone else that it's really not necessary.
The rest of this video is an important distinction from basically all the other small car companies featured at AutoblogGreen. It shows that Tesla has not only performed crash testing, but they're happy enough with the results to share them with the world.
Reply
Chris M 1:36AM (10/14/2007)
"Wonder how this would do in a side-impact."
Uh, if you had watched the video, you would have seen the side impact test, and that it did extremely well.
The illusion of safety sells SUVs, but it is only an illusion. SUVs are prone to rollovers, and rollover accidents have the highest rates of fatalities. Also, SUVs usually do worse in braking and emergency manuver tests.
Reply
Scott 10:51AM (10/14/2007)
ChrisM. Agreed it is only a illusion on the safety part of SUV's, but a strong one for your average buyer. They like to sit high.
The video shows quite nicely the side impact test.
WS
Reply
why not the LS2/LS7? 12:28PM (10/14/2007)
Turbofrog:
I can't see how you can lavish praise on the Tesla for livability and producing their car when they haven't produced it yet and no one has had to live with it for any period of time yet.
Kardax:
The big difference between these other companies and Tesla is marketing. If these other companies were smart enough to market their cars in this way and thus gain the support from the wealthy necessary to make a go of selling $100K impractical cars, then they could afford to do crash tests too.
Reply
Joseph 8:12PM (10/15/2007)
I cannot believe how negative all of you are.
Tesla Motors is a great company. 6 months delay isn't all that much! Many car companies give very little info until it is just a few weeks before the official launch.
Reply
BillO 1:46PM (10/15/2007)
Well, to market a car the way Tesla is marketing the car, it actually has to have a specific feature set. It has to be designed to support the marketing claims. So you have to start with the marketing claims and design the car to support that, not the other way around. These other cars and 3-wheelers do not have the same features as the Tesla and hence could not be saved by post-design "marketing".
This is a mistake Detriot keeps making. They think they can beat the compeition by marketing alone, without making a differentiated, better car.
As to needlessly dissing the competition, this is a long-standing Silicon Valley startup tradition. All the CEOs do it. If you don't believe you are building the best thing in the world and that everything else is crap, you won't have the drive to make it happen. And CEOs are never shy about expressing their opinions. You may not like it, but that's the way it has always been.
Reply
Martin Eberhard 1:46PM (10/15/2007)
The 3-wheel dig was aimed at the Idealab presentation before mine. (Idealab is behind the Aptera.)
I made this dig because the presenter from Idealab made a similar dig at Tesla, commenting on the cost and weight of the Tesla when compared to the lighter and cheaper (and much further from production) Aptera concept.
As others have noted here, the primary reason for making a 3-wheel vehicle is because the DOT classifies such vehicles a motorcycles, exempting them from all crash testing and most safety equipment.
Our car would be lighter and cheaper too if it did not have airbags, crumple zones, side-intrusion protection, and all the rest of the gear required to survive the crashes I presented at that conference. It would also not be a safe vehicle.
Martin Eberhard
Founder and President of Technology
Tesla Motors
Reply
Kardax 2:17PM (10/15/2007)
Hmm, there's gotta be an "out-of-context"-safe way to dig at three wheelers...
I'll have to think on this.
Reply
GoodCheer 4:31PM (10/15/2007)
"Our car would be lighter and cheaper too if it did not have airbags, crumple zones, side-intrusion protection, and all the rest of the gear required to survive the crashes I presented at that conference. It would also not be a safe vehicle."
Well settle down there... The Aptera does have airbags and crumple zones, at least according to Steve Fambo's post on the topic:
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/10/02/interview-with-steve-fambro-from-aptera-motors/4#comments
I think it might be more relevant to say that the Tesla would be lighter if it had only 19% of it's current battery and less expensive it it didn't have to go though FORMAL DOT TESTING of it's safety features.
Reply
Kardax 5:37PM (10/15/2007)
GoodCheer: Simply having crumple zones and air bags doesn't mean you won't be obliterated in a crash. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=amFJwdg7O1E
Reply
Kardax 5:38PM (10/15/2007)
(It's irritating when you post at ABG... but it doesn't show up until you nudge it out with a second post...)
Reply
Tim Hilty 8:53PM (10/18/2007)
The crash test results look great to me. I was very impressed.
I was shocked by the comment by Mr. Eberhard as to the cost to make one of these! They are losing $250,000 on each car? Incredible!
I am currently doing an economics research paper on indicators to look at before investing in companies. This negative profit margin would not be a good indicator i'm thinking.
Still, It seems like a fantastic company and I hope they do very well. America needs this type of forward thinking and risk taking.
Good luck Martin, and when your company goes public, I will be the first to invest. Tim
Reply