The entire front and rear castings are designed to shatter in a high energy collision and crumple.
The size of a crumple zone isn’t as important as how it absorbs the energy and dispenses it.
You could have a 20foot crumple zone that’s empty and it’s be useless.
You can see it crumpled here. They’ve also posted a different video on the official X account of a crash test but I won’t post that to avoid linking them.
here.
Since you got something so utterly basic wrong and posted it as true, I can only assume the entire post is fabricated.
Edit: took a screen shot instead of video. It crumples all the way past the front wheels
I remember there was a suspicion about the nature of these because Tesla have chosen not to be certified by third parties for safety and only posted these in-house crash videos instead, no other data has been shared. It rose some eyebrows because Elon could has dodged the regulations just out of spite and to cut corners in time, money needed for that, but at the same time we don’t know if their own tests are legit and how many of them have been done - all we see is these posts by his SMM team. This conversation about CT safety consists of only one party, Tesla, that has obvious economical interests, so you either trust them or not.
You seem nice. Anyway, a crumple zone is assumed to be designed in such a way that it protects the occupants of the vehicle.
No one said it didn’t “crumple” on impact. The problem is that it doesn’t sufficiently crumple in such a way that it dissipates the energy effectively.
In this case, the vehicle’s occupants are still traveling at a decent rate of speed and the material of the vehicle is thick enough so they could potentially sustain head injuries. Other vehicles do not have a similar concern.
I’ll reserve judgement until the NHTSA. NCAP, and IIHS weigh in. I know the NHTSA and IIHS have declined to test due to the cost of the vehicle/testing vs low market share of the Cybertruck. As far as I understand NCAP has no plans to test since the design by default breaks EU regulations before you even consider crash testing.
I trust Tesla’s internal testing about as much as I trust Boeing’s internal testing.
But… it does have crumple zones.
The entire front and rear castings are designed to shatter in a high energy collision and crumple.
The size of a crumple zone isn’t as important as how it absorbs the energy and dispenses it.
You could have a 20foot crumple zone that’s empty and it’s be useless.
You can see it crumpled here. They’ve also posted a different video on the official X account of a crash test but I won’t post that to avoid linking them. here.
Since you got something so utterly basic wrong and posted it as true, I can only assume the entire post is fabricated.
Edit: took a screen shot instead of video. It crumples all the way past the front wheels
I remember there was a suspicion about the nature of these because Tesla have chosen not to be certified by third parties for safety and only posted these in-house crash videos instead, no other data has been shared. It rose some eyebrows because Elon could has dodged the regulations just out of spite and to cut corners in time, money needed for that, but at the same time we don’t know if their own tests are legit and how many of them have been done - all we see is these posts by his SMM team. This conversation about CT safety consists of only one party, Tesla, that has obvious economical interests, so you either trust them or not.
It’s not that Tesla didn’t choose to have it tested, the agencies haven’t wanted to test it yet.
They don’t test every vehicle and they don’t always test what they think will be low volume vehicles.
Teala could sponsor it, but it’s not like every manufacturer sponsors a vehicle that the testing agencies decide not to test.
For example, I don’t believe the model 3 highland has been tested again after all the changes, and if it has, not all the testing agencies yet.
You seem nice. Anyway, a crumple zone is assumed to be designed in such a way that it protects the occupants of the vehicle.
No one said it didn’t “crumple” on impact. The problem is that it doesn’t sufficiently crumple in such a way that it dissipates the energy effectively.
In this case, the vehicle’s occupants are still traveling at a decent rate of speed and the material of the vehicle is thick enough so they could potentially sustain head injuries. Other vehicles do not have a similar concern.
Hope your day gets better. Cheers.
https://www.reuters.com/business/autos-transportation/tesla-cybertrucks-stiff-structure-sharp-design-raise-safety-concerns-experts-2023-12-08/
It comes and goes.
Have you seen this crash yet where all 4 participants survived?
https://www.motor1.com/news/731526/tesla-cybertruck-crash-auction/
It’s trashed, but you can see it got wrecked up to the passenger compartment on the front, and the rear is missing all the way into the back wheels.
Neither of those distances is insignificant for a crumple area. That thing had to be flipping and they absorbed that energy.
I’ll reserve judgement until the NHTSA. NCAP, and IIHS weigh in. I know the NHTSA and IIHS have declined to test due to the cost of the vehicle/testing vs low market share of the Cybertruck. As far as I understand NCAP has no plans to test since the design by default breaks EU regulations before you even consider crash testing.
I trust Tesla’s internal testing about as much as I trust Boeing’s internal testing.
Makes sense about NCAP ya. It’ll get tested eventually we’ll just have to wait.