Comment by nimbius
7 years ago
Great truck. Very exotic design, excellent price point, However, there was one statement that stood out as a MASSIVE mistake:
>The glass is stronger than standard car glass
Please stop doing this. Audi and Mercedes pulled this gimmicky crap about 8 years ago until they realized samaritans, Firefighters and EMT's need to be able to breech safety-glass windows in the event you become entrapped in the vehicle (possibly burning) during a major accident. You may also need to shatter a window in order to exit your vehicle if it becomes submerged in a body of water.
Teslas are already unique enough to require their own first responder procedure to perform an advanced extraction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4peF1EYke8
Please, the vehicle already looks like the M577 Armored Personnel Carrier from Aliens. it outruns a porsche, it out pulls an f150. Youve ticked all the masculine boxes truck owners want for this thing. Dont turn it into a rolling coffin.
Not sure what you're worried about; all you need to break in is a lightly thrown metal ball.
The actual video (not related to me)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IdaDdZHBOZA
I’m hoping for Jeremy clarkson to take a whack at “killing a Tesla” a la the infamous hilux that wouldn’t die:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xnWKz7Cthkk
Considering the first part of that challenge is that they submerge the hilux in the sea, I can't see the tesla holding up too well. Would love to see it though!
2 replies →
I'm not sure the lightly thrown ball can break the polymer layer. Just because the glass layer shatters it doesn't mean you can go trough it.
Hope they don't use something like this 3M polymer layer, because it means you will be trapped for 2 more minutes even if you have the tools to go trough the polymer.
https://youtu.be/cZy4DJHM_fs?t=34
I still can't tell how much of that was planned.
Ok, how/where do I acquire one of these in <insert entropic stereotypicality here> disaster situation?
It was a joke making fun of the fact that the windows broke during the demo.
It's possible to build a stronger window that's still vulnerable to those "Window Punch" devices that all firemen carry these days. I'm sure this was considered, I believe it's regulated in some regions.
Otherwise, if that is indeed the case, if it was a family car for use with kids that would be a borderline deal breaker. But that doesn't seem to be the target market here. For me personally as long as they communicate the risk honestly I don't see the problem.
One of the bullet points was that it seats six. Pretty sure this'll be rolling through suburbia delivering tots to Montessori schools.
> Teslas are already unique enough to require their own first responder procedure to perform an advanced extraction. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D4peF1EYke8
Isn't most of that just the special consideration that all electric vehicles will need in order to isolate the battery voltage?
Model X doors are pretty mechanically exotic and the normal way they're opened requires electric power. E.g. the prying done at 15 minutes into the video is not at all how you'd force a normal car door.
I couldn’t disagree more.
There’s nothing gimmicky or odd about this. It was demonstrated to behave exactly like standard laminated auto glass, which is everything short of required to meet FMVSS 226 standards required by 2017. Most all US cars now have laminated side glass.
And for good reason, they make curtain air bags stay in place and do their job correctly. Side impacts are way more common than fires or submersions.
Regardless, first responders have been dealing with laminated glass on windshields for many decades, they have tools to deal with it.
And the number of people who break out their own windows to save themselves is approaching zero. Tools are typically still required to break old-school safety glass.
The extra strong steel panels also raise questions about accidents and crumple zones. Modern vehicles are designed to absorb as much force as possible instead of deflecting the impact.
My first thought is that it's not even a truck. The price will likely be increased and it will be unrepairable. You can't drive a car down the street without side mirrors.
Some cars are replacing side mirrors with cameras now to help with drag and cabin buffeting. It's legal in Europe but not yet in the US.
The new Honda e is going to do this.
1 reply →
And you definitely can't tow without side mirrors.
As long as it's got cameras like the Audi e-tron, why not?
2 replies →
But it's Tesla so it's better in every way...or something.
I heard that Tesla is bypassing that on the Roadster with removable side mirrors which you can install cameras there instead. Not sure on the specifics, but something along those lines (although I'm not sure about the legality and please don't quote me on this).
The glass fractured pretty easily. The demonstration didn't go as planned:
https://youtu.be/m7atGkba-Z8?t=75
So maybe that means it's not so hard to get into if needed.
>Great truck. Very exotic design, excellent price point,
Hmm as a long time Truck Buyer I am not impressed with the design at all, nor the specs, nor the price.
>Please, the vehicle already looks like the M577 Armored Personnel Carrier from Aliens.
I wish, no this looks like some on put a Truck bed on a Pontiac Trans sport minivan from the 90's
This Truck buyer will be waiting for the Electric F150, that is for sure
sure and if it breaks down a tesla should do just fine toeing it.
In my multiple decades as a Ford Truck owner, never once has any of the trucks left be stranded, Sure they had mechanical problems, ran rough, etc but they still got me home.
Of Course I also take pristine care of my Trucks, don't abuse them, and change all fluids under old school time tables not modern "Life time" fluid bull shit marketing
1 reply →
Great point! But, to be fair, the glass didn't look that strong in the demo :)
I had to refresh my memory on the M577 Carrier: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVLBLJOCBg8
In the grand scheme of things, what are the chances of getting in a car accident that leaves you alive, but traps you, and also causes life threatening injures or situations, but only at the level where if first responders can't reach and extract you in the average amount of time? And how many people are afraid enough of becoming submerged in water to even have the tools necessary to shatter a regular window? And even if they have the tools, what are the chances they'd be in reach and that you'd be able enough to reach them?
Pretty high? You need only be unconcious to end up dying in a burning car because no one could extract you. Cars also deform in weird and chaotic ways in a real world accident, who knows what will be the final piece between you and safety. People sometimes exit via their rear windows because the front of the cabin is crushed and the glass there broke, but the doors and windshield frames were also crushed so you can't exit. Cars are pretty good at absorbing the impact so your body can tolerate it non-fatally, but you may still end up broken, trapped or simply unconcious.
Or reinforced windows might be the thing that prevent injury and death in the unpredictable scenario someone ends up in. I'm just saying, I don't think a strong case could be made for or against stronger windows. Statistics might give a good idea over a long enough timeline, but until more people are driving around with stronger windows, getting in accidents, how can we be sure?
3 replies →
You can flip your question around and say what are the chances that you need stronger windows than the rest of the vehicles on the road?
I like your inversion method. For public consumers, we may need a stronger windshield glass for better protection, yes! For side windows though, probably not so much.
Dude, I grew up in Fresno. Duck yes I want bullet proof glass.
Doors unable to open + fire is all it takes.
So then you just need explosive bolts, right?
7 replies →
Open the pod bay door, HAL !
You can never tick enough masculine boxes.
The main reason cars with internal-combustion engines catch on fire during collisions must be a breach in the fuel system. While your point about rescuing passengers is valid, I'm not sure fires alone could support it.
That’s what this guy thought, too, just a few weeks ago. The URL tells the tale: https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2019/10/23/man-died-...
Teslas burn just fine, in fact much more unpredictably than ICE cars.
Yup.
Side note, the anecdote seems misinformed, "The car is so overengineered. It’s so techy, it makes you want to buy a Chevy pickup truck." GM makes more money on trucks than on any other line so you better believe their is more R&D and technology in those vehicles than almost anything else in their lineup -- the only exception being the Cadillacs with SuperCruise. I'm guessing that lawyer has not been in a modern pickup truck.
The big chunk of lithium that powers a Tesla will burn just fine. I think it’s a valid point.
Tesla's catch fire as well - [pdf warning] https://www.tesla.com/sites/default/files/downloads/2016_Mod...
Battery fires are worse than gasoline fires from what I've read: (2016) - https://jalopnik.com/tesla-model-s-batteries-violently-explo... (2017) - https://jalopnik.com/tesla-model-s-torched-in-weird-supercha...
Conceivably, the fire could be another car burning. If you have two disabled cars next to each other after a collision and one of them is on fire, people in the car next to it could be cooked if they don't get out.
There are many valid reasons first responders might have to remove people from cars quickly.
The person(s) you hit, or that hits you, may be driving a petrol vehicle.
Not at all. A key point is protection from attackers.
But they need ballistic glass.
https://wartell.com/video/WZPS1j4KvJs
> A key point is protection from attackers.
Who is going to be attacking you? Seriously. Even with all this crazy stuff going on we live in one of the most peaceful times is history. Especially in the West, which is where most of these are going to sell (few people that live in these violent places could afford this. Except maybe the authoritarian regimes themselves).
Personally I'd rather get the extra miles that a lighter vehicle offers than knowing that I can shoot my truck with a pistol. If you feel like you need this kind of protection then I feel sorry that you live in such unjustified fear.
Carjackers, kidnappers, assassins, etc.
Maybe not many in violent places could afford these things, but they're the ones who'd be targeted.
1 reply →
American neighborhoods are typically either like Switzerland or Swaziland. Most neighborhoods have low crime, low gun violence, and high income comparable to Switzerland. The other neighborhoods are comparable to Swaziland in terms of violent crimes. Don't be so quick to call someone's fear irrational if you haven't lived in Swaziland neighborhoods.
1 reply →
I disagree, I wish we could have fewer vehicle restrictions for a certain class a vehicles for people who accept the risks associated. A truck with bullet proof windows might be nice for people who live or drive through certain areas.
That sounds like exactly the sort of statistical analysis people tend to get spectacularly wrong. I'd be surprised if more than a single-digit number of people get shot while driving even in the US. For Europe, you probably need to express it in years/incident if you want to use integers.
Meanwhile, more than a million people die in crashes each year, and some 40 million or so are injured. Putting any, even small, additional obstacle in the way of help is bound to be a losing proposition.
This would essentially be a re-hash of the seatbelt debate, where many people were somehow convinced they could escape any accident by quickly jumping out before impact. That attitude lead to seatbelt laws, which were the single most important factor in reducing fatalities per mile traveled by a factor of 10 or so since the peak.
While I'm tempted to invoke some Darwinian principle, the damage wouldn't be limited to those making that decisions, but also their passenger, the next owners, etc, and possibly pedestrian victims of collisions.
In any case, I doubt it's actually forbidden right now. There are, after all, bulletproof cars. They just tend to be expensive enough to mostly discourage people motivated by Hollywood macho fantasies.
Most of these types of vehicle will be owned by a suburbian parent driving his/her kids to some variant of organized recreational events. The rest is just marketing.
I'd be wary about buying one for this application. I read underfloor compartments somewhere, and these tend to preclude the use of ISOFIX rear-facing car seats. A problem I'm facing right now; we didn't take a future child into account when buying our current car those two years ago, and now fitting a child car seat is a PITA.
It's not like you can't get your own bullet proof glass installed. It seems pretty silly on a consumer vehicle meant for suburbia.