Feds told Tesla to stop making “misleading statements” on Model 3 safety

"Your company has issued a number of misleading statements," NHTSA wrote to Musk.

Read the whole story

 

[theSeb]

I don’t think there is anything more rabid than Tesla / Musk fans and I am including rabid dogs.

 

[Dfiler420]

I think what Elon was refferring to is a technolgy based claim. Physically the car has been proven safest, beyond this we are also talking Technology. The smarts cars driverless technologies offer a car that can actually juke and dodge others. Any car that can protect itself or its driver more soley due to the fact it can protect itself by out driving others around it is easily i believe safer as Musk claimed... Its all about perception, and actual driving, not just being crashed into a wall lol. Tell em Elon!

 

[Papewaio]

But the NHTSA argues that this is statistical malpractice because it doesn't take into account vehicle weight. In a vehicle-to-vehicle crash, the occupant of the heavier vehicle is less likely to be injured. The NHTSA's tests, which involve crashing a car into fixed objects, don't necessarily account for this difference.

But wouldn't a fixed object be roughly equivalent to a very heavy object, in terms of how the collision works?

No, not at all. Collisions with a fixed object depend basically on how gradually your vehicle can slow you down. Crumple zone size and whatnot. Any car can perform well in that measure. Collisions with a much larger vehicle going the other way will essentially reverse your speed instantly leading to huge accelerations. There is very little that the maker of a small car can do to protect you from the accelerations that will be produced if you hit a semi trailer head on.

You won’t get instantly accelerated backwards. The smaller object would normally get pushed backwards, however the crumple zones do absorb a lot of the momentum. The better the crumple zones of both objects the better off the occupants of both vehicles are as a fair amount of deceleration of both vehicles is done.

An ideal crumple zone could absorb all the energy, the net effect of which I’m not sure how to calculate but I assume it would mean both cars would be stationary at the end of the perfect collision. Of course the cause of the accident would be that the vehicles could not brake due to a frictionless surface but hey physics handwaving here...

 

[Voyna i Mor]

Ah physics, objects in motion tend to stay in motion. And the most massive land yacht carries more momentum on impact. So bring back the Hummers! Feel safe knowing you've used the other vehicle as a crumple zone.

The Smart car has an extremely strong passenger enclosure, and I have seen one with a "Your car is my crumple zone" sticker.
However, the deceleration of the passenger on impact is still much higher than that of the person in the pickup truck, and that's unfortunately how Mr. Newton* runs it.

 

[AustraliaAustralia]

This is a case where both sides are right.

(and where I'll be downvoted by readers who do fall on a particular side )

Tesla is lying, since 5 stars is also achieved by many other cars, its unfair to say they are the best when others got the same exact score.

They are free to add spin, but its dishonest to then become the judge of a system managed by a gov authority. The authority gave their score, they judge everyone with the same score to be equally safe, none more than others, and thats it.

 

[Chuckstar]

Tesla noticed that the Model 3 had a better VSS score than any other vehicle on the market. That, in Tesla's view, means that a Model 3 driver is less likely to be injured in a crash than a driver of any other vehicle.

So would I. If NHTSA thinks the VSS isn't sufficient for such comparisons then the solution isn't to hammer Tesla's use. NHTSA needs to fix VSS then publish the scores.

This sort of thinking led to the oft-mocked 100-point video game review scores and the like.of yesteryear. As if the subjective reviewer could really draw a meaningful distinction between, say, a 93-point score and a 92-point score.

The position of the NHTSA, which knows a lot more than you or me about crashworthiness and auto safety, is that crash dynamics are so complex that there is no utility in offering more than a five-level (six? I don't know if there's a zero-star rating) scoring system. More verbose information is not necessarily better, especially when attempting to communicate to non-experts.

"People are too stupid to understand more data" is a pretty poor excuse for not having a more informative safety scoring system than 1-5.

It's not that people are too stupid to understand a more complex rating system. The point is that doing a handful of tests doesn't give you the breadth of data that would actually be necessary to give a more complex score.

 

[Hopefully Smarter]

con man

 

[AnchorClanker]

It's as if the libertarians all bought Teslas.

Not sure if I got that joke

Consider yourself blessed.

 

[numerobis]

But the NHTSA argues that this is statistical malpractice because it doesn't take into account vehicle weight. In a vehicle-to-vehicle crash, the occupant of the heavier vehicle is less likely to be injured. The NHTSA's tests, which involve crashing a car into fixed objects, don't necessarily account for this difference.

But wouldn't a fixed object be roughly equivalent to a very heavy object, in terms of how the collision works?

No, not at all. Collisions with a fixed object depend basically on how gradually your vehicle can slow you down. Crumple zone size and whatnot. Any car can perform well in that measure. Collisions with a much larger vehicle going the other way will essentially reverse your speed instantly leading to huge accelerations. There is very little that the maker of a small car can do to protect you from the accelerations that will be produced if you hit a semi trailer head on.

You won’t get instantly accelerated backwards. The smaller object would normally get pushed backwards, however the crumple zones do absorb a lot of the momentum. The better the crumple zones of both objects the better off the occupants of both vehicles are as a fair amount of deceleration of both vehicles is done.

An ideal crumple zone could absorb all the energy, the net effect of which I’m not sure how to calculate but I assume it would mean both cars would be stationary at the end of the perfect collision. Of course the cause of the accident would be that the vehicles could not brake due to a frictionless surface but hey physics handwaving here...

As long as they end up spherical it all works out.

 

[Jim Z]

Tesla noticed that the Model 3 had a better VSS score than any other vehicle on the market. That, in Tesla's view, means that a Model 3 driver is less likely to be injured in a crash than a driver of any other vehicle.

So would I. If NHTSA thinks the VSS isn't sufficient for such comparisons then the solution isn't to hammer Tesla's use. NHTSA needs to fix VSS then publish the scores.

This sort of thinking led to the oft-mocked 100-point video game review scores and the like.of yesteryear. As if the subjective reviewer could really draw a meaningful distinction between, say, a 93-point score and a 92-point score.

The position of the NHTSA, which knows a lot more than you or me about crashworthiness and auto safety, is that crash dynamics are so complex that there is no utility in offering more than a five-level (six? I don't know if there's a zero-star rating) scoring system. More verbose information is not necessarily better, especially when attempting to communicate to non-experts.

"People are too stupid to understand more data" is a pretty poor excuse for not having a more informative safety scoring system than 1-5.

It's not that people are too stupid to understand a more complex rating system. The point is that doing a handful of tests doesn't give you the breadth of data that would actually be necessary to give a more complex score.

clearly the problem isn't Tesla's claims being unfounded, clearly it's NHTSA's fault that their data doesn't support Tesla's claims.

 

[ryanmct]

Additionally, results of the IIHS test have not yet been released for the Model 3.
The IIHS small overlap front test was the test for which the Model S scored a below par "acceptable" relative to its peers.

 

[Bush Ranger]

Tesla noticed that the Model 3 had a better VSS score than any other vehicle on the market. That, in Tesla's view, means that a Model 3 driver is less likely to be injured in a crash than a driver of any other vehicle.

So would I. If NHTSA thinks the VSS isn't sufficient for such comparisons then the solution isn't to hammer Tesla's use. NHTSA needs to fix VSS then publish the scores.

This sort of thinking led to the oft-mocked 100-point video game review scores and the like.of yesteryear. As if the subjective reviewer could really draw a meaningful distinction between, say, a 93-point score and a 92-point score.

The position of the NHTSA, which knows a lot more than you or me about crashworthiness and auto safety, is that crash dynamics are so complex that there is no utility in offering more than a five-level (six? I don't know if there's a zero-star rating) scoring system. More verbose information is not necessarily better, especially when attempting to communicate to non-experts.

"People are too stupid to understand more data" is a pretty poor excuse for not having a more informative safety scoring system than 1-5.

It's not that people are too stupid to understand a more complex rating system. The point is that doing a handful of tests doesn't give you the breadth of data that would actually be necessary to give a more complex score.

clearly the problem isn't Tesla's claims being unfounded, clearly it's NHTSA's fault that their data doesn't support Tesla's claims.

Clearly it was pedo guys fault for not agreeing with Musks submarine thing.

 

[Skyfire77]

Meanwhile, month-old Model 3s are rusting:

Savolainen was told by Tesla that it won’t be fixed under warrantee, so he asked the Finnish Chamber of Commerce for an inspection. The report isn’t good. It states that around the hinges of the doors, underneath the doors, and around the A and B pillars, there is not enough paint used. It also mentions that the poor alignment of the doors is causing paint at the bottom of the doors to be scraped off when being opened and closed.

Just how little paint was used? Well, in some places, the paint thickness averaged 106 microns, below 110-150 microns which is the paint thickness in most cars. But in some other places, the paint is just 70 microns.

The inspection also revealed that the paint is very soft. But it gets worse in the second video, posted 21st of July. In this second video, he shows the area’s mentioned in the Finnish Chamber of Commerce’s report. Around the trunk hinges and doors, and the bottom of the A and C pillars, there is exposed primer, with no paint left. In some places, there is just bare steel. There is also lots of rust inside the body.

It's almost as if building and painting cars in a tent in your back yard will lead to problems....

 

[RyanM651]

Come on Musk, this is trumpian levels of marketing.
"It's going to be the bestest most safetly car ever made... nothing is going to be more safe and some are saying probably the most self-driveyist as well."

 

[ImBitman]

Tesla noticed that the Model 3 had a better VSS score than any other vehicle on the market. That, in Tesla's view, means that a Model 3 driver is less likely to be injured in a crash than a driver of any other vehicle.

So would I. If NHTSA thinks the VSS isn't sufficient for such comparisons then the solution isn't to hammer Tesla's use. NHTSA needs to fix VSS then publish the scores.

This sort of thinking led to the oft-mocked 100-point video game review scores and the like.of yesteryear. As if the subjective reviewer could really draw a meaningful distinction between, say, a 93-point score and a 92-point score.

The position of the NHTSA, which knows a lot more than you or me about crashworthiness and auto safety, is that crash dynamics are so complex that there is no utility in offering more than a five-level (six? I don't know if there's a zero-star rating) scoring system. More verbose information is not necessarily better, especially when attempting to communicate to non-experts.

"People are too stupid to understand more data" is a pretty poor excuse for not having a more informative safety scoring system than 1-5.

It's not that people are too stupid to understand a more complex rating system. The point is that doing a handful of tests doesn't give you the breadth of data that would actually be necessary to give a more complex score.

clearly the problem isn't Tesla's claims being unfounded, clearly it's NHTSA's fault that their data doesn't support Tesla's claims.

Haha, it’s scary that Musk might actually think that. It’s crazy the mental gymnastics some do to rationalize how he might not have been straight-out lying. He’s straight-out lying. Almost every lie has some kernels of truth being twisted in, but it makes it no less a lie. Claiming the “lowest probability of injury” of any vehicle period, ever tested by the NHTSA is a lie implying their judgement of that. It’s their test he’s claiming says so, after all. He’s taking a tiny bit of data, twisting it and ignoring all kinds of other insufficiencies of the specific tests done to be making that broad judgement from. It’s a statement meant to mislead people, to give them a false impression of something. It’s a lie. Obviously, he thinks he’s immune from regulation though and doesn’t respect laws designed for investor or consumer protection. He knows better than any silly tests anyway.

 

[cptskippy]

The NHTSA is arguing that the VSS score is determined by hitting a fixed object and that in a collision with another vehicle, passengers in the heavier vehicle have a reduced risk of injury.

I guess my question is, do passengers in a lighter vehicle have a higher risk of injury when hitting a heavier vehicle rather than a fixed object? I'm assuming they do because of that vehicle's inertia.

For comparison purposes, the Model 3 has over a 4000lbs curb weight. This is around the starting weight of a standard cab Ford F-150. A Ford Expedition has a curb weight around 5200lbs. A Honda Accord ranges from 3000-3600lbs.

 

[CommentatorForNow]

Let's level set here. Tesla's Model 3 performed better on NHTSA's "Vehicle Safety Score" than any other car ever. NHTSA does not dispute that fact.

NHTSA disputes comparison claims using VSS when those claims can be interpreted to suggest that a better VSS for Vehicle A than Vehicle B supports the conclusion that Vehicle A will be safer than Vehicle B in all scenarios. Tesla's claims don't clarify that there are specific circumstances where comparison using VSS won't be valid.

The specific circumstance NHSTA cites as an example where VSS comparisons are dubious is where Vehicle A has a crash with a significantly heavier vehicle, Vehicle B.

Tesla counters with two solid points in their response to NHTSA:

(1) As a matter of law, Tesla's claims only make the generic statement about overall likelihood of injury - they make no claims (implied or otherwise) about performance in specific crash scenarios (with a heavier vehicle, rolling over, setting on fire, etc.), AND

(2) the basis for taking the overall VSS score and applying it to real-life crash scenarios OVERALL, is that most crashes involving death or serious injury are not the weight-mismatch scenario that NHTSA highlighted.

Something around half of serious injuries/deaths occur in crashes that are single-vehicle , and, among multi-vehicle crashes, a significant percentage will involve vehicles that are going to be of similar or lesser weight than the Model 3 (which is about average in weight among light duty cars and trucks).

I appreciate NHTSA wanting to police the use of their data for representations made to consumers. And I also think it's appropriate for a consumer protection agency to confirm the validity of the evidence Tesla uses to support, in particular, Point 2 above (that their VSS comparison is valid for the majority of crash-types that result in serious injury or death).

But this is not the same, for example, as Musk's statement about having secured the funding for Tesla to be bought out or making irresponsible claims about when FSD will be truly available. Teslas really are exceptionally safe vehicles, and at least on certain tests, have outperformed all others, and - frankly - I think leaders in safety should be able to take credit for having done so.

 

[co-lee]

Tesla should absolutely respond with hard data & close this one out

they don't have any. This is merely NHTSA reminding them "hey, our data doesn't say the things you're claiming it says, so stop claiming it does."

and the fact that Tesla keeps not actually giving real data (whether here around safety or in autopilot performance) speaks volumes about what that data would actually show ...

 

[Git-stompa]

Do I have to pay 3,000$ to unlock the firmware for crash resilience?

 

[traumadog]

Let's level set here. Tesla's Model 3 performed better on NHTSA's "Vehicle Safety Score" than any other car ever. NHTSA does not dispute that fact.

NHTSA disputes comparison claims using VSS when those claims can be interpreted to suggest that a better VSS for Vehicle A than Vehicle B supports the conclusion that Vehicle A will be safer than Vehicle B in all scenarios. Tesla's claims don't clarify that there are specific circumstances where comparison using VSS won't be valid.

The specific circumstance NHSTA cites as an example where VSS comparisons are dubious is where Vehicle A has a crash with a significantly heavier vehicle, Vehicle B.

Tesla counters with two solid points in their response to NHTSA:

(1) As a matter of law, Tesla's claims only make the generic statement about overall likelihood of injury - they make no claims (implied or otherwise) about performance in specific crash scenarios (with a heavier vehicle, rolling over, setting on fire, etc.), AND

(2) the basis for taking the overall VSS score and applying it to real-life crash scenarios OVERALL, is that most crashes involving death or serious injury are not the weight-mismatch scenario that NHTSA highlighted.

Something around half of serious injuries/deaths occur in crashes that are single-vehicle , and, among multi-vehicle crashes, a significant percentage will involve vehicles that are going to be of similar or lesser weight than the Model 3 (which is about average in weight among light duty cars and trucks).

I appreciate NHTSA wanting to police the use of their data for representations made to consumers. And I also think it's appropriate for a consumer protection agency to confirm the validity of the evidence Tesla uses to support, in particular, Point 2 above (that their VSS comparison is valid for the majority of crash-types that result in serious injury or death).

But this is not the same, for example, as Musk's statement about having secured the funding for Tesla to be bought out or making irresponsible claims about when FSD will be truly available. Teslas really are exceptionally safe vehicles, and at least on certain tests, have outperformed all others, and - frankly - I think leaders in safety should be able to take credit for having done so.

To be clear, Tesla's claims may not specify circumstances where VSS may be invalid, but an absence of such a clarification tends to make the reader think there are no exceptions to the claim, not that the claim is valid for specific circumstances.

Honestly, I would think that actual empiric data - namely IIHS type data - would be a better talking point than NHTSA testing.

Heck, rollover scores are done as a static tilt test. Low-slung sports cars do well on this test, but empiric data clearly demonstrates that sports cars frequently roll over due to driver behavior.

 

[Chuckstar]

Let's level set here. Tesla's Model 3 performed better on NHTSA's "Vehicle Safety Score" than any other car ever. NHTSA does not dispute that fact.

NHTSA disputes comparison claims using VSS when those claims can be interpreted to suggest that a better VSS for Vehicle A than Vehicle B supports the conclusion that Vehicle A will be safer than Vehicle B in all scenarios. Tesla's claims don't clarify that there are specific circumstances where comparison using VSS won't be valid.

The specific circumstance NHSTA cites as an example where VSS comparisons are dubious is where Vehicle A has a crash with a significantly heavier vehicle, Vehicle B.

Tesla counters with two solid points in their response to NHTSA:

(1) As a matter of law, Tesla's claims only make the generic statement about overall likelihood of injury - they make no claims (implied or otherwise) about performance in specific crash scenarios (with a heavier vehicle, rolling over, setting on fire, etc.), AND

(2) the basis for taking the overall VSS score and applying it to real-life crash scenarios OVERALL, is that most crashes involving death or serious injury are not the weight-mismatch scenario that NHTSA highlighted.

Something around half of serious injuries/deaths occur in crashes that are single-vehicle , and, among multi-vehicle crashes, a significant percentage will involve vehicles that are going to be of similar or lesser weight than the Model 3 (which is about average in weight among light duty cars and trucks).

I appreciate NHTSA wanting to police the use of their data for representations made to consumers. And I also think it's appropriate for a consumer protection agency to confirm the validity of the evidence Tesla uses to support, in particular, Point 2 above (that their VSS comparison is valid for the majority of crash-types that result in serious injury or death).

But this is not the same, for example, as Musk's statement about having secured the funding for Tesla to be bought out or making irresponsible claims about when FSD will be truly available. Teslas really are exceptionally safe vehicles, and at least on certain tests, have outperformed all others, and - frankly - I think leaders in safety should be able to take credit for having done so.

So the fact that the VSS was not even designed to make the kind of comparison Tesla is trying to make is irrelevant in your analysis? The test is basically only designed to sort vehicles into one of five categories.

 

[co-lee]

It is a fact that the Tesla Model 3 is significantly safer than other cars of similar size and weight. IMO, Tesla is fully within its rights to highlight that fact using publicly available NHTSA data.

Only allowing Tesla to advertise "5 stars", when it's vehicles are actually far safer than competing "5 star" rated vehicles, largely defeats the point of the NHTSA tests - to encourage auto makers to improve their vehicle's safety. Why spend time and money to exceed a 5 star safety rating if you're not allowed to tell anyone about it?

<snip />
I'd be fascinated to learn the criteria for the term 'far safer'.

I'm pretty sure in this case the criteria start and end with the manufacturer being Tesla ...

 

[Printzer]

I have a couple of questions for the group:

1) Does violating 'Guidelines' in this case actually mean anything in a real and legal manner? I note that in the letter from the NHTSA they are forwarding their complaint to the FTC. Does the NHTSA have any legal standing itself?

2) The FTC received this ~10 months ago. I certainly understand government departments take a while to respond, but isn't this a little long to go without some response? Or is this one of those cases of a department being able to hold something over a company. "You know, we'e still reviewing that complaint we received."


{ And not to inflame the fire going on, but I'd love to see the upvote/downvote reasoning breakdown. I've seen some (what I consider) interesting posts downvoted to oblivion and some remarkably useless ones left completely unvoted. Maybe it's a case where coming back in 12 hours will generate a clearer picture. }

 

[Jim Z]

I have a couple of questions for the group:

1) Does violating 'Guidelines' in this case actually mean anything in a real and legal manner? I note that in the letter from the NHTSA they are forwarding their complaint to the FTC. Does the NHTSA have any legal standing itself?

Not that I know of, this would fall under false advertising which is the FTC’s purview. NHTSA isn’t going to revoke their rating or anything.

 

[Deleted member 221201]

Tesla should absolutely respond with hard data & close this one out

they don't have any. This is merely NHTSA reminding them "hey, our data doesn't say the things you're claiming it says, so stop claiming it does."

and the fact that Tesla keeps not actually giving real data (whether here around safety or in autopilot performance) speaks volumes about what that data would actually show ...

Precisely. My very first comment on this was for Tesla to show evidence & close it out or apologize & man up & retract claim

I thought their legal counter argument was interesting & so if it goes to court it gets resolved one way or another.

This was jumped upon by others claiming "fanboyism".

NO. I prefer the company either prove the claim or retract it & get on with the business of making cars & software for those cars.

edit:
clarified sentence.

 

[goibniu]

So Tesla was technically correct, which is the best kind of correct.

Read the article again,

"So Tesla was technically incorrect, which is the worst kind of incorrect."

FTFY

 

[ready_load$81]

Ah physics, objects in motion tend to stay in motion. And the most massive land yacht carries more momentum on impact. So bring back the Hummers! Feel safe knowing you've used the other vehicle as a crumple zone.

The Smart car has an extremely strong passenger enclosure, and I have seen one with a "Your car is my crumple zone" sticker.
However, the deceleration of the passenger on impact is still much higher than that of the person in the pickup truck, and that's unfortunately how Mr. Newton* runs it.

This. Is there data pointing to SmartCar injuries in collisions with vehicles >7,900 lbs travelling highway speeds? I can't imagine the SmarCar passengers come out better than those in a Lincoln Navigator.

 

[jock2nerd]

I have a couple of questions for the group:

1) Does violating 'Guidelines' in this case actually mean anything in a real and legal manner? I note that in the letter from the NHTSA they are forwarding their complaint to the FTC. Does the NHTSA have any legal standing itself?

2) The FTC received this ~10 months ago. I certainly understand government departments take a while to respond, but isn't this a little long to go without some response? Or is this one of those cases of a department being able to hold something over a company. "You know, we'e still reviewing that complaint we received."


{ And not to inflame the fire going on, but I'd love to see the upvote/downvote reasoning breakdown. I've seen some (what I consider) interesting posts downvoted to oblivion and some remarkably useless ones left completely unvoted. Maybe it's a case where coming back in 12 hours will generate a clearer picture. }

What happened is an anti-Tesla groups (pick your poison: but probably Shorts or Oil lobby) got hold of this old and relatively irrelevant information from last year and started pushing it out.
I saw it first attributed to CNBC, but that probably wasn't the first place it appeared.

The pushers of this story rely on the laziness of journalists to just copy & paste their story without doing even simple verification. Timothy Lee appears fits that profile. Then all the trolls and haters jump in with both feet.

There is an actual point-by-point response from Tesla from last year, which has been mentioned in the comments, but that Mr. Lee was too lazy to obtain it, or to review once it had been found, or to update his article once other people had reviewed it for him.

Its just how this stuff works.

 

[tgx]

Classic Tesla. Rather than simply stop advertising the 'added' information, which has dubious marketing value anyway, they go to blows with NHTSA.

 

[co-lee]

Tesla should absolutely respond with hard data & close this one out

they don't have any. This is merely NHTSA reminding them "hey, our data doesn't say the things you're claiming it says, so stop claiming it does."

and the fact that Tesla keeps not actually giving real data (whether here around safety or in autopilot performance) speaks volumes about what that data would actually show ...

Precisely. My very first comment on this was for Tesla to show evidence & close it out or apologize & man up & retract claim

I thought their legal counter argument was interesting & so if it goes to court it gets resolved one way or another.

This was jumped upon by others claiming "fanboyism".

NO. I prefer the company either prove the claim or retract it & get on with the business of making cars & software for those cars.

edit:
clarified sentence.

yes -- that is what you said and I gave you an upvote for it.

(As far as fanboyism, you do appear to often have a serious case of that, but asking for data and saying the Tesla needs to retract their statements if they can't produce said data didn't seem like a fan moment. Rather the kind of thing I'd like to see more Tesla proponents ask for. If they can produce data to back their claims, then good. Given the ongoing and consistent failure to do so, it seems to me like some might want to temper their over the top enthusiasm: like the cars, don't believe the hype...)

 

[Tondelaya Shillyshally von Brainstorm]

I have a couple of questions for the group:

1) Does violating 'Guidelines' in this case actually mean anything in a real and legal manner? I note that in the letter from the NHTSA they are forwarding their complaint to the FTC. Does the NHTSA have any legal standing itself?

2) The FTC received this ~10 months ago. I certainly understand government departments take a while to respond, but isn't this a little long to go without some response? Or is this one of those cases of a department being able to hold something over a company. "You know, we'e still reviewing that complaint we received."


{ And not to inflame the fire going on, but I'd love to see the upvote/downvote reasoning breakdown. I've seen some (what I consider) interesting posts downvoted to oblivion and some remarkably useless ones left completely unvoted. Maybe it's a case where coming back in 12 hours will generate a clearer picture. }

1. Their job is to create not to enforce. They do not have any real power over anybody. They can easily refer your case to whoever has relevant power, in this case the Federal Trade Commission, but also the Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. There is no purpose to employing an enforcement body inside of the NHTSA.

2. Ten months is not super long for this kind of thing. The FTC takes time. If a punishment comes out of this it will be retroactive to the date of the issue. If it takes them two years and they come back and determine that Tesla must pay a fine to coincide with a percentage of earnings, the earnings number they use will be from now, not from two years from now. If Tesla is circling the drain in 2021, but in 2019 they were worth $60 billion, the FTC will calculate based on $60 billion and force Tesla to go bankrupt paying their fine.

 

[CommentatorForNow]

Let's level set here. Tesla's Model 3 performed better on NHTSA's "Vehicle Safety Score" than any other car ever. NHTSA does not dispute that fact.

NHTSA disputes comparison claims using VSS when those claims can be interpreted to suggest that a better VSS for Vehicle A than Vehicle B supports the conclusion that Vehicle A will be safer than Vehicle B in all scenarios. Tesla's claims don't clarify that there are specific circumstances where comparison using VSS won't be valid.

The specific circumstance NHSTA cites as an example where VSS comparisons are dubious is where Vehicle A has a crash with a significantly heavier vehicle, Vehicle B.

Tesla counters with two solid points in their response to NHTSA:

(1) As a matter of law, Tesla's claims only make the generic statement about overall likelihood of injury - they make no claims (implied or otherwise) about performance in specific crash scenarios (with a heavier vehicle, rolling over, setting on fire, etc.), AND

(2) the basis for taking the overall VSS score and applying it to real-life crash scenarios OVERALL, is that most crashes involving death or serious injury are not the weight-mismatch scenario that NHTSA highlighted.

Something around half of serious injuries/deaths occur in crashes that are single-vehicle , and, among multi-vehicle crashes, a significant percentage will involve vehicles that are going to be of similar or lesser weight than the Model 3 (which is about average in weight among light duty cars and trucks).

I appreciate NHTSA wanting to police the use of their data for representations made to consumers. And I also think it's appropriate for a consumer protection agency to confirm the validity of the evidence Tesla uses to support, in particular, Point 2 above (that their VSS comparison is valid for the majority of crash-types that result in serious injury or death).

But this is not the same, for example, as Musk's statement about having secured the funding for Tesla to be bought out or making irresponsible claims about when FSD will be truly available. Teslas really are exceptionally safe vehicles, and at least on certain tests, have outperformed all others, and - frankly - I think leaders in safety should be able to take credit for having done so.

So the fact that the VSS was not even designed to make the kind of comparison Tesla is trying to make is irrelevant in your analysis? The test is basically only designed to sort vehicles into one of five categories.

Why does NHTSA sort vehicles into safety categories, other than to allow consumers to determine which cars are safer than others? Of course NHTSA's studies are designed to produce conclusions that consumers can use to compare vehicle safety.

What NHSTA doesn't want is for those conclusions to be taken out of context, and it has taken a broad position (here) that any statement that implies a safety comparison of vehicles in different weight classes is problematic. Its stated reasoning for that position is that in crashes between vehicles with different weights, passengers in the lighter vehicle are likely to suffer greater injury.

Tesla's response is essentially to take NHSTA's reasoning (concern about crashes with heavier vehicles) and explain why that doesn't pose a problem to the overall safety comparison.

They've taken weight of vehicles into consideration and don't think it affects the conclusion of overall safety. Those heavier cars (big SUVs/trucks) are still less safe because the most likely incidents to result in death or serious injury are single-vehicle accidents, and big SUVs and trucks are notorious for rolling over / struggling in high-wind/weather etc.. And then, among the remainder of accidents, the Model 3 is going to be the same or heavier than the car it hits much of the time.

As I said, Tesla will need to have strong data to support its logic and it is appropriate for a consumer protection agency to vet that data.

But the uproar about a company with the actual best VSS score from NHTSA laying claim to having the safest vehicle is not something I'm going to lose sleep over.

[Now, if they have hard data showing they are NOT the safest, then that would be a huge issue. But that is not alleged.]

 

[CommentatorForNow]

Let's level set here. Tesla's Model 3 performed better on NHTSA's "Vehicle Safety Score" than any other car ever. NHTSA does not dispute that fact.

NHTSA disputes comparison claims using VSS when those claims can be interpreted to suggest that a better VSS for Vehicle A than Vehicle B supports the conclusion that Vehicle A will be safer than Vehicle B in all scenarios. Tesla's claims don't clarify that there are specific circumstances where comparison using VSS won't be valid.

The specific circumstance NHSTA cites as an example where VSS comparisons are dubious is where Vehicle A has a crash with a significantly heavier vehicle, Vehicle B.

Tesla counters with two solid points in their response to NHTSA:

(1) As a matter of law, Tesla's claims only make the generic statement about overall likelihood of injury - they make no claims (implied or otherwise) about performance in specific crash scenarios (with a heavier vehicle, rolling over, setting on fire, etc.), AND

(2) the basis for taking the overall VSS score and applying it to real-life crash scenarios OVERALL, is that most crashes involving death or serious injury are not the weight-mismatch scenario that NHTSA highlighted.

Something around half of serious injuries/deaths occur in crashes that are single-vehicle , and, among multi-vehicle crashes, a significant percentage will involve vehicles that are going to be of similar or lesser weight than the Model 3 (which is about average in weight among light duty cars and trucks).

I appreciate NHTSA wanting to police the use of their data for representations made to consumers. And I also think it's appropriate for a consumer protection agency to confirm the validity of the evidence Tesla uses to support, in particular, Point 2 above (that their VSS comparison is valid for the majority of crash-types that result in serious injury or death).

But this is not the same, for example, as Musk's statement about having secured the funding for Tesla to be bought out or making irresponsible claims about when FSD will be truly available. Teslas really are exceptionally safe vehicles, and at least on certain tests, have outperformed all others, and - frankly - I think leaders in safety should be able to take credit for having done so.

To be clear, Tesla's claims may not specify circumstances where VSS may be invalid, but an absence of such a clarification tends to make the reader think there are no exceptions to the claim, not that the claim is valid for specific circumstances.

Honestly, I would think that actual empiric data - namely IIHS type data - would be a better talking point than NHTSA testing.

Heck, rollover scores are done as a static tilt test. Low-slung sports cars do well on this test, but empiric data clearly demonstrates that sports cars frequently roll over due to driver behavior.

Fortunately, businesses are not required to enumerate all specific instances where the general rule (i.e. so-and-so product is the safest) does not hold, so long as the general rule is true and supported by evidence and there are no clearly implied specific applications. Else, we would have a very difficult time communicating generally applicable rules.

It would be different if, in the context of any claim of being generally safer than other vehicles, Tesla implied that Model 3s would fair better than a heavier vehicle in a head on collision between the two (for example, if a commercial showed a Model 3 about to get into a collision with a bigger car/SUV). But that didn't happen here.

And I certainly agree that there are likely other stats/tests that car companies may want to rely on other than NHTSA's VSS.

 

[CommentatorForNow]

I have a couple of questions for the group:

1) Does violating 'Guidelines' in this case actually mean anything in a real and legal manner? I note that in the letter from the NHTSA they are forwarding their complaint to the FTC. Does the NHTSA have any legal standing itself?

2) The FTC received this ~10 months ago. I certainly understand government departments take a while to respond, but isn't this a little long to go without some response? Or is this one of those cases of a department being able to hold something over a company. "You know, we'e still reviewing that complaint we received."


{ And not to inflame the fire going on, but I'd love to see the upvote/downvote reasoning breakdown. I've seen some (what I consider) interesting posts downvoted to oblivion and some remarkably useless ones left completely unvoted. Maybe it's a case where coming back in 12 hours will generate a clearer picture. }

1. Their job is to create not to enforce. They do not have any real power over anybody. They can easily refer your case to whoever has relevant power, in this case the Federal Trade Commission, but also the Department of Transportation, the Federal Aviation Administration and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. There is no purpose to employing an enforcement body inside of the NHTSA.

2. Ten months is not super long for this kind of thing. The FTC takes time. If a punishment comes out of this it will be retroactive to the date of the issue. If it takes them two years and they come back and determine that Tesla must pay a fine to coincide with a percentage of earnings, the earnings number they use will be from now, not from two years from now. If Tesla is circling the drain in 2021, but in 2019 they were worth $60 billion, the FTC will calculate based on $60 billion and force Tesla to go bankrupt paying their fine.

You'd probably expect a disclosure in the 10-K about an ongoing FTC investigation...

 

[traumadog]

Let's level set here. Tesla's Model 3 performed better on NHTSA's "Vehicle Safety Score" than any other car ever. NHTSA does not dispute that fact.

NHTSA disputes comparison claims using VSS when those claims can be interpreted to suggest that a better VSS for Vehicle A than Vehicle B supports the conclusion that Vehicle A will be safer than Vehicle B in all scenarios. Tesla's claims don't clarify that there are specific circumstances where comparison using VSS won't be valid.

The specific circumstance NHSTA cites as an example where VSS comparisons are dubious is where Vehicle A has a crash with a significantly heavier vehicle, Vehicle B.

Tesla counters with two solid points in their response to NHTSA:

(1) As a matter of law, Tesla's claims only make the generic statement about overall likelihood of injury - they make no claims (implied or otherwise) about performance in specific crash scenarios (with a heavier vehicle, rolling over, setting on fire, etc.), AND

(2) the basis for taking the overall VSS score and applying it to real-life crash scenarios OVERALL, is that most crashes involving death or serious injury are not the weight-mismatch scenario that NHTSA highlighted.

Something around half of serious injuries/deaths occur in crashes that are single-vehicle , and, among multi-vehicle crashes, a significant percentage will involve vehicles that are going to be of similar or lesser weight than the Model 3 (which is about average in weight among light duty cars and trucks).

I appreciate NHTSA wanting to police the use of their data for representations made to consumers. And I also think it's appropriate for a consumer protection agency to confirm the validity of the evidence Tesla uses to support, in particular, Point 2 above (that their VSS comparison is valid for the majority of crash-types that result in serious injury or death).

But this is not the same, for example, as Musk's statement about having secured the funding for Tesla to be bought out or making irresponsible claims about when FSD will be truly available. Teslas really are exceptionally safe vehicles, and at least on certain tests, have outperformed all others, and - frankly - I think leaders in safety should be able to take credit for having done so.

To be clear, Tesla's claims may not specify circumstances where VSS may be invalid, but an absence of such a clarification tends to make the reader think there are no exceptions to the claim, not that the claim is valid for specific circumstances.

Honestly, I would think that actual empiric data - namely IIHS type data - would be a better talking point than NHTSA testing.

Heck, rollover scores are done as a static tilt test. Low-slung sports cars do well on this test, but empiric data clearly demonstrates that sports cars frequently roll over due to driver behavior.

Fortunately, businesses are not required to enumerate all specific instances where the general rule (i.e. so-and-so product is the safest) does not hold, so long as the general rule is true and supported by evidence and there are no clearly implied specific applications. Else, we would have a very difficult time communicating generally applicable rules.

It would be different if, in the context of any claim of being generally safer than other vehicles, Tesla implied that Model 3s would fair better than a heavier vehicle in a head on collision between the two (for example, if a commercial showed a Model 3 about to get into a collision with a bigger car/SUV). But that didn't happen here.

And I certainly agree that there are likely other stats/tests that car companies may want to rely on other than NHTSA's VSS.

Except the claim was

"Model 3 achieves the lowest probability of injury of any vehicle tested by NHTSA", followed by

"But when a crash happens in real life , these test results show that if you are driving a Tesla, you have the best chance of avoiding serious injury."

(Emphasis mine - note, it does not specify "under these test circumstances")

Now, the lawyerese of the Tesla response said they did not "claim Model 3 would outperform substantially heavier vehicles in a head to head crash...", it does leave open how any individual reading the previous quotes would come to the conclusion of a Tesla driver being less safe than a heavier vehicle in those circumstances.

Because presumably, any given reader would assume the heavier vehicle was tested by NHTSA as well, and that vehicle had a lower score - and therefore is less safe.

 

[Jim Z]

I have a couple of questions for the group:

1) Does violating 'Guidelines' in this case actually mean anything in a real and legal manner? I note that in the letter from the NHTSA they are forwarding their complaint to the FTC. Does the NHTSA have any legal standing itself?

2) The FTC received this ~10 months ago. I certainly understand government departments take a while to respond, but isn't this a little long to go without some response? Or is this one of those cases of a department being able to hold something over a company. "You know, we'e still reviewing that complaint we received."


{ And not to inflame the fire going on, but I'd love to see the upvote/downvote reasoning breakdown. I've seen some (what I consider) interesting posts downvoted to oblivion and some remarkably useless ones left completely unvoted. Maybe it's a case where coming back in 12 hours will generate a clearer picture. }

What happened is an anti-Tesla groups (pick your poison: but probably Shorts or Oil lobby) got hold of this old and relatively irrelevant information from last year and started pushing it out.

oh look, the fanboy is reading from the script again:

1) "anti-Tesla"
2) "shorts"
3) "big oil"
.
.
.
.

 

[Deleted member 221201]

Tesla should absolutely respond with hard data & close this one out

they don't have any. This is merely NHTSA reminding them "hey, our data doesn't say the things you're claiming it says, so stop claiming it does."

and the fact that Tesla keeps not actually giving real data (whether here around safety or in autopilot performance) speaks volumes about what that data would actually show ...

Precisely. My very first comment on this was for Tesla to show evidence & close it out or apologize & man up & retract claim

I thought their legal counter argument was interesting & so if it goes to court it gets resolved one way or another.

This was jumped upon by others claiming "fanboyism".

NO. I prefer the company either prove the claim or retract it & get on with the business of making cars & software for those cars.

edit:
clarified sentence.

yes -- that is what you said and I gave you an upvote for it.

(As far as fanboyism, you do appear to often have a serious case of that, but asking for data and saying the Tesla needs to retract their statements if they can't produce said data didn't seem like a fan moment. Rather the kind of thing I'd like to see more Tesla proponents ask for. If they can produce data to back their claims, then good. Given the ongoing and consistent failure to do so, it seems to me like some might want to temper their over the top enthusiasm: like the cars, don't believe the hype...)

Thanks for your reasoned response

I'm enthusiastic about the car, since I own one & I write software & ML for a living
I'm also proud its a local company in California & like any user I submit bug reports on the UI that is reproducible &/or drives me nuts or can be done better

I'm not happy about the crazy tweets from Musk, I do have a lot of respect for the engineers & designers, because at the end of the day its their hard work & passion on the road & I tip my hat to that

They are far enough ahead technically that the product can stand on it's own merits & apparently it is since people are buying the product & they don't need to go down the VW route

Per all my previous posts, I'm not defending Musk, I'm defending a product made by some good engineering teams & will call out issues on the same product as well

I do get why people may confuse the 2 & call it "fanboyism" & that is fine.

At the end of the day, this is the first new U.S automaker in the last 52 years & I would like to see a homegrown company beat the big boys

Edit:
Changed terms to teams

 

[ImBitman]

I have a couple of questions for the group:

1) Does violating 'Guidelines' in this case actually mean anything in a real and legal manner? I note that in the letter from the NHTSA they are forwarding their complaint to the FTC. Does the NHTSA have any legal standing itself?

2) The FTC received this ~10 months ago. I certainly understand government departments take a while to respond, but isn't this a little long to go without some response? Or is this one of those cases of a department being able to hold something over a company. "You know, we'e still reviewing that complaint we received."


{ And not to inflame the fire going on, but I'd love to see the upvote/downvote reasoning breakdown. I've seen some (what I consider) interesting posts downvoted to oblivion and some remarkably useless ones left completely unvoted. Maybe it's a case where coming back in 12 hours will generate a clearer picture. }

What happened is an anti-Tesla groups (pick your poison: but probably Shorts or Oil lobby) got hold of this old and relatively irrelevant information from last year and started pushing it out.
I saw it first attributed to CNBC, but that probably wasn't the first place it appeared.

The pushers of this story rely on the laziness of journalists to just copy & paste their story without doing even simple verification. Timothy Lee appears fits that profile. Then all the trolls and haters jump in with both feet.

There is an actual point-by-point response from Tesla from last year, which has been mentioned in the comments, but that Mr. Lee was too lazy to obtain it, or to review once it had been found, or to update his article once other people had reviewed it for him.

Its just how this stuff works.

Omg. So rich, you actually went there. There’s rumors people like you exist but it’s hard to believe until you read it for yourself. Any criticism of Tesla or Musk, even if it’s him making false accusations, lying about production or even lying about a specific rating is just the evil oil companies or short-sellers making it up. Yup. That’s it

 

[Deleted member 221201]

In an earlier post, I put down a link to a 40ft fall in a model 3.

I was genuinely surprised an all glass roof did not shatter or crack.
Would either of the auto editors @ ars like to follow up on this ?

Is it the glass ? or the B-pillar ? or ... just plain luck ? or some new manufacturing technique ?
(Apple's use of Corning's Gorilla glass came to mind here)

This would make an interesting article, as maybe other car makers are looking into the same tech, like the phone makers did

 

[ImBitman]

Let's level set here. Tesla's Model 3 performed better on NHTSA's "Vehicle Safety Score" than any other car ever. NHTSA does not dispute that fact.

NHTSA disputes comparison claims using VSS when those claims can be interpreted to suggest that a better VSS for Vehicle A than Vehicle B supports the conclusion that Vehicle A will be safer than Vehicle B in all scenarios. Tesla's claims don't clarify that there are specific circumstances where comparison using VSS won't be valid.

The specific circumstance NHSTA cites as an example where VSS comparisons are dubious is where Vehicle A has a crash with a significantly heavier vehicle, Vehicle B.

Tesla counters with two solid points in their response to NHTSA:

(1) As a matter of law, Tesla's claims only make the generic statement about overall likelihood of injury - they make no claims (implied or otherwise) about performance in specific crash scenarios (with a heavier vehicle, rolling over, setting on fire, etc.), AND

(2) the basis for taking the overall VSS score and applying it to real-life crash scenarios OVERALL, is that most crashes involving death or serious injury are not the weight-mismatch scenario that NHTSA highlighted.

Something around half of serious injuries/deaths occur in crashes that are single-vehicle , and, among multi-vehicle crashes, a significant percentage will involve vehicles that are going to be of similar or lesser weight than the Model 3 (which is about average in weight among light duty cars and trucks).

I appreciate NHTSA wanting to police the use of their data for representations made to consumers. And I also think it's appropriate for a consumer protection agency to confirm the validity of the evidence Tesla uses to support, in particular, Point 2 above (that their VSS comparison is valid for the majority of crash-types that result in serious injury or death).

But this is not the same, for example, as Musk's statement about having secured the funding for Tesla to be bought out or making irresponsible claims about when FSD will be truly available. Teslas really are exceptionally safe vehicles, and at least on certain tests, have outperformed all others, and - frankly - I think leaders in safety should be able to take credit for having done so.

So the fact that the VSS was not even designed to make the kind of comparison Tesla is trying to make is irrelevant in your analysis? The test is basically only designed to sort vehicles into one of five categories.

Why does NHTSA sort vehicles into safety categories, other than to allow consumers to determine which cars are safer than others? Of course NHTSA's studies are designed to produce conclusions that consumers can use to compare vehicle safety.

What NHSTA doesn't want is for those conclusions to be taken out of context, and it has taken a broad position (here) that any statement that implies a safety comparison of vehicles in different weight classes is problematic. Its stated reasoning for that position is that in crashes between vehicles with different weights, passengers in the lighter vehicle are likely to suffer greater injury.

Tesla's response is essentially to take NHSTA's reasoning (concern about crashes with heavier vehicles) and explain why that doesn't pose a problem to the overall safety comparison.

They've taken weight of vehicles into consideration and don't think it affects the conclusion of overall safety. Those heavier cars (big SUVs/trucks) are still less safe because the most likely incidents to result in death or serious injury are single-vehicle accidents, and big SUVs and trucks are notorious for rolling over / struggling in high-wind/weather etc.. And then, among the remainder of accidents, the Model 3 is going to be the same or heavier than the car it hits much of the time.

As I said, Tesla will need to have strong data to support its logic and it is appropriate for a consumer protection agency to vet that data.

But the uproar about a company with the actual best VSS score from NHTSA laying claim to having the safest vehicle is not something I'm going to lose sleep over.

[Now, if they have hard data showing they are NOT the safest, then that would be a huge issue. But that is not alleged.]

There is no support of this “logic”. It’s simply false. He’s saying it had the lowest probability of injury of any car ever tested by the NHTSA. He’s implying their credentials are behind a rating they’re not giving, based on a test that simply doesn’t say that. What Musk can do is give alternative rational as to why he thinks it’s the safest car to ever walk the earth, but that’s not what he’s doing. There’s just no rational he can provide to justify putting words in their mouth, or using their credibility to back his own opinion or even alternative data he might want to provide. This type of measurement just wan’t intended to test it’s probability of injury compared to any car they’ve ever tested, which is why they didn’t back the statement and politely asked him to stop “misleading” people about that.