I appreciate the opportunity to view crash tests from countries outside the USA. Exposure to different testing analysis enables the consumer to make an informed buying decision. Thank you for sharing this test.
Really liked the info about the back passenger. If people don't watch the whole video basically the front passengers are completely fine in this crash, but the back passengers got it really bad.
The Volvo is on a platform designed in 2014 and the Tesla on one designed much more recently, but still is designed with much more redundancy. Volvo for life!
@@chrisak49Except it didn’t fail. It just didn’t get a “good” rating, it scored an “acceptable” rating. To understand that - a 10 year old car, without any side upgrades, without the addition of a centre airbag, without the addition of a seat mounted rear airbag, managed to score better than most of the new newer designed vehicles in this test class. The new barrier is heavier, it moves faster, and has a more dangerous shaped structure that is designed to punch through the side of a car to cause much more damage, like a bull bar would. This test required the car to absorb 80% + more energy than it was designed for, and still passed the test. That platform won’t be updated because the XC60 is being replaced by the ex60, which I bet you will be passing the safety impact standards in another decade.
@@asum307 Volvo is held to a high standard. Anything not rated Good instead of Acceptable is considered a fail. The XC40 also did not do well in the updated side tests and that platform is even newer.
@@chrisak49 That’s not true at all. 😂 You’re talking shit right now. Out of that updated side test at the time, very few cars managed to score a good, as a matter of a fact, in the updated side test for small SUVs only the Mazda CX-5 did. Something you forgot to mention is that when the XC40 was retested with the updated tests it was only 1 of 2 SUVS to get a good test result in the frontal offset. The Mazda that scored so well went from good, to a poor rating in the updated tests because their cars were only built for the tests, not for actual safety. I might add that the same Volvo that got acceptable for the updated side crash test received a top safety pick plus for the 2022 year.
Volvo is really a great and safe car. However, the tesla 3 which is the base design of model y, was presented in 2016. So the design was probably not much newer. With introduction of gigacast one could say that it's a larger change, but most is still the same. The xc60 has also seen updates since 2014.
In 2019 i rear ended a Nissan Juke with my then 2004 Volvo V70 D5 at about 20 mph/ 30 Kph. Airbags went off and no much damage as such other than the windscreen and some cracked plastic. The insurance took the car as the cost to replace airbags and seat pretentioners would cost more than the value of the car. The Nissan Juke had to go in for repairs for about £3000. So regardless of the age of a Volvo, a 10 - 15 year old Volvo will still be safer than many new cars. Also, nobody has ever died in a Volvo XC90.
Just wondering. What about the rear passenger's head hitting the front seat in a Tesla? How it influenced results? Could this have caused the neck and head bending numbers to be distorted because the head was stopped by hitting the front seat? It was not mentioned in results of rear passengers. For me it seemed like the most dangerous thing on this crash test but no one focused on that. Can we assume that higher chest pressure of belt in Volvo might caused that rear passenger was protected of hitting to the front seat? Comparing green numbers and discussing whether Tesla or Volvo has smaller or higher numbers in the event that it means nothing for the health of the crew seems pointless to me. I would like to hear a more detailed explanation about the results of the rear passengers, because we could clearly see that in the case of the Tesla there was a head impact. Could it have been fatal? But great video, finally someone compared head to head Tesla and Volvo cars in crash test.
Same Q, it is obviously rear passenger in Tesla would get  concussion. Bot case neck injury possible broken rib. Even worse what if the passenger is taller person 200cm or 6,6 ft. I would like to see tall driver test results as there are more tall people now we are discriminated and our safety is being neglected as we have more risks of injury in case of accident!
I is very important to always have well fixed safety belts. It means that belts should be blocked and you should feel belt pressure on your body. You should be blocked by seat belts and have limited possibility to move your back. Good defence driving school always teach how to fasten your seat belts properly. The seat should be on the most vertical position possible (it is very good for your back health too). Forget thick jackets. It is not comfortable drive with fixed belts this way but it can save your life like once saved me. So there is no choice either comfort or safety.
Teknicservice... THAT WAS THE BIGGEST STRAIGHT OUT LIE in a long time. Here is the truth: Tesla is involved in more car accidents than ANY other car brand. Yes I know that hurts
We need more focus on rear passengers. It seams rear passenger in Tesla bashed his head and got a concussion! Both back passengers got a neck injury and maybe a broken rib! What concerns everyone more is how safe are tall drivers and passengers?! Safety standards seem seriously outdated!!! What if rear passenger is 200cm (6,6ft) even greater injury! 🤯😱 It is obvious now rear part of front seat needs an airbag!
Confused... It seemed like they were bashing the tesla for crumpling whereas the Volvo didn't... Its the crumpling that gave the tesla the lower imjury numbers to the front passengers, as more crumpling is more time to distribute the energy from the crash. More time significantly decreases the initial momentum change where damage is done. Id be curious to see the same test performed at higher speeds, say each vehicle going 80mph and see if their theory of the tesla cabin not holding up sould be true. As by design, it is supposed to crumple to a certain point then stop. Interesting results none the less. I would never have guessed it was THAT much less safe being a rear passenger in a tesla!!!
Looks like propaganda, Volvo is funded by the Chinese. Volvo isnt even on top 10 lists from NHTSA, GNCAP or Euro NCAP. DCar also places Tesla above Volvo on their recent tests.
Both cars crumpled correctly as they were deisgned to do so the tesla had full reached its limit as in no more crumple zone available it reached its firewall and stopped and with the some of the stress being transferred into the a pillar an extra 16km/h would intrude the occupants compartment where with the volvo the crumple zone has absorbed the impact but also utilised both sides of the car as its deigned to and still with an engine hasn't reached the firewall meaning at 80 in theory it should be safer then the tesla model y.
@@joewhite8079Thanks for the explanation! That's definitely interesting. I don't know what to think. As Tesla's actual frame outside the crumple zone seems ridiculously strong from what I've seen. People driving off cliffs rolling and other intense crashes and the frame is still rigid. If the frame is actually going in with this crash then yes that's a risk. In this test it appeared due to the crumple zone being 100% used up there was less force on the occupents, which makes sense. Granted it's also true if there was much higher energy/speeds in the crash the crumple zone would be less effective than if it had more crumple zone left. Tesla probably designs their crumple zones for average crash test speeds versus 80mph as average is what's tested. It would be interesting to see 80mph crash tests across the board with all vehicles.
Would like to know more about the rear passenger. Why is it safer to be in the front? Is it because of a lack of frontal airbags from the rear compartment? Isn't that against the traditional thinking that rear seats are safer? Maybe we should put a single child in the front seat for safety? What if we repeated the test but with child sized dummies? Also the video notes that there is no standard for rear seat crash limits, yet the numbers were shown in red. Red compared to what? Are they using the same numbers are the front seats? Anyway I give the video 5 stars.. amazing amount of work, even if it took me a while to understand the subtitles.. Chinese is a fast language when read thru English subtitles!
Fantastic video! You should try an "old/new" car crash. I don't know how an 2010 Volvo S80 (for example) will perform in situations like this Thanks again!!
Im in my 2nd XC60. Got tee boned my 1st at about 60 kmh. On passenger side. Definitely get the Volvo at least I know it won't catch fire and doors can open in a nasty accident so you can get out.
@@iam5085 As do 400 others every year, in all other brands, for the same reason in the US. What is odd about this case was that usually the Model X opens it rear doors when getting flooded. Also Tesla doors can be opened mechanically from the inside, like all other cars. Main take from this is that FSD will be a massive life save when it comes to drunk people wanting to take their own car home.
VOLVO XC60 DO NOT HAVE FRONT CENTER AIRBAG FOR AVOIDING HEAD BUMPING ON SIDE CRHASH OF DRIVER AND PASSENGER. ! TESLA DOES, ALSO LEXUS NX AND MERCEDES GLS DOES. HOW COME VOLVO DO NOT HAVE A FRONT CENTER AIR BAG? NOT AT THE XC60, 90, 40?
The production value of this series is insane. However the relative speed is not 128kmh as started in this video at 4:01. Mythbusters already corrected and proven this in a special episode.
That poison gas venting to Model Y cabin is no good. And you could see that passenger whiplash was not survivable. But it is good to know that the low tire pressure alarm was working.
what poison gas? You are talking about the "smoke" of the airbags, like the presenter said. It is in both vehicles and he said its not a problem. Who said the whiplash is not survivable? I would worry more about the compression of the chest in the Volvo although even that is not life threatening. both these cars did very well.
@@stephaneszczypa9598Volvo financial backer is Greely, as what Ford was prior... still doesn't stop them from making cars the way they have for years...
Obviously according to the explanations, the Volvo did better und would be able to sustain a crash at even higher speeds, whereas the (newer!) Model Y's structures were close to snapping completely
Seems like a paid advertisement from Volvo. The rear dummy moved so bad, there is no way it was getting better reads. The door was not opening properl, but had been explained...
How is it paid? The rear dummy moved more because the volvo also went up during the collision because of its higher stance and hitting a lower car. The pre tensioner did there job enough to hold them in place.
@@ciankelly-zv5qk An hour is more than enough for the driver to exit the car or have someone help them out of the car. Plus, it looks like they weren't even using the physical door release which is easily accessible inside. It would've opened just fine had he used the manual release.
@@vdn999No, it didn’t! Look at the test results. Tesla dummy has absorbed much less energy on all body parts, except for the knees (due to the Volvo knee airbag). That is what matters in a crash and not the visible cosmetics of the car. Tesla crumples more in some parts for a reason. And also the driver’s door could be opened easily on the Tesla and not so much on the Volvo. It is crucial if you can open the door in a crash and escape quickly or be taken out. So, in short - Tesla clearly won!
😂 watch at 11:11, Volvo no damage to the windscreen and roof, that means the Volvo body is more stronger than Tesla, 10km more and the driver will be dead in Tesla, because we can see clearly there is a very big damaged to the body structure, the Tesla driver will be smashed same like in Brilliance bs6, on Volvo the front wing come on top of door, so is not big problems to open the door, this is happened because Volvo used a strong steel when making wings, doors... One person crash in one winter my Volvo 855 1994, my car moved 1m from where I left parked, 855 had just a scratch on the rear bumper but anoter car( Opel zefira 2005)smashed rear lights, cracked rear bumper and bend rear wing.😊
I am guessing this Tesla is a RWD version? If so we can expect it not to catch fire during a front collision as there's almost no HV parts in the front crump zone. However the result could be different if it's an AWD version with HV wires and motor at front. This type of textbook collision test would not be a problem to most Teslas or EVs. However some non-textbook accidents could be quite fatal. For example a road hazard that can deform the battery from bottom, or a T-bone collison. With today's Autopilot and collision prevention technologies front end collison is happening less and less often. Tests on EV fire safety should focus more on those type of non-textbook accidents. A little more explanation: Test designers should focus more on the nature of the vehicles. They are quite different. As an example on ICE cars it's very easy to increase range however not easy to increase power, so traditionally power is a top measure of an ICE car. However on EVs it's just the opposite -- it's very easy for EVs to increase power however quite difficult to increase range. So on EVs range becomes a top metric. Similarly on safety tests EVs with flat battery at bottom would perform completely different than ICE cars with engine in the front. This should be taken into consideration when designing the tests.
I think RWD or not makes no difference here. The HV is immediately disconnected in case of a crash. That's why you see the vehicle getting out of power after a while.
@@knobretep2063 Search for Tesla crashes at higher speeds. There are many situations where the car burst into flames because the battery cracked. I bet it is very hard to find footage on the internet of Tesla or any other electric vehicle exploding.
Equal a head on collision at 64KPH to a solid wall but the car has double crumble zone. (However, it is only true if the two vehicles have approximately the same weight.)
@@The._.Truth-.- не имеет значения сплошная стена или барьер. Разрушители мифов уже проводили тест. Разрушения в стену или сминаемый барьер на скорости 120 не равен разрушениям двух встречных автомобилей едущих со скоростью 60 каждая.
I appreciate the opportunity to view crash tests from countries outside the USA. Exposure to different testing analysis enables the consumer to make an informed buying decision. Thank you for sharing this test.
Really liked the info about the back passenger. If people don't watch the whole video basically the front passengers are completely fine in this crash, but the back passengers got it really bad.
The Volvo is on a platform designed in 2014 and the Tesla on one designed much more recently, but still is designed with much more redundancy. Volvo for life!
Volvo XC60 failed IIHS new side test.
@@chrisak49Except it didn’t fail. It just didn’t get a “good” rating, it scored an “acceptable” rating.
To understand that - a 10 year old car, without any side upgrades, without the addition of a centre airbag, without the addition of a seat mounted rear airbag, managed to score better than most of the new newer designed vehicles in this test class.
The new barrier is heavier, it moves faster, and has a more dangerous shaped structure that is designed to punch through the side of a car to cause much more damage, like a bull bar would.
This test required the car to absorb 80% + more energy than it was designed for, and still passed the test.
That platform won’t be updated because the XC60 is being replaced by the ex60, which I bet you will be passing the safety impact standards in another decade.
@@asum307 Volvo is held to a high standard. Anything not rated Good instead of Acceptable is considered a fail. The XC40 also did not do well in the updated side tests and that platform is even newer.
@@chrisak49 That’s not true at all. 😂 You’re talking shit right now.
Out of that updated side test at the time, very few cars managed to score a good, as a matter of a fact, in the updated side test for small SUVs only the Mazda CX-5 did.
Something you forgot to mention is that when the XC40 was retested with the updated tests it was only 1 of 2 SUVS to get a good test result in the frontal offset.
The Mazda that scored so well went from good, to a poor rating in the updated tests because their cars were only built for the tests, not for actual safety.
I might add that the same Volvo that got acceptable for the updated side crash test received a top safety pick plus for the 2022 year.
Volvo is really a great and safe car.
However, the tesla 3 which is the base design of model y, was presented in 2016. So the design was probably not much newer.
With introduction of gigacast one could say that it's a larger change, but most is still the same. The xc60 has also seen updates since 2014.
Volvo for life❤
Fantastic video, guys! Very very informative! Insane amout of work!
Ps: Volvo for life
Many useful information, instructive video. Insane amount of work. Thx💯
Both cars did really well. I own both, but the X instead of Y.
I have all four, S3XY. I always worry about the S and X's door handles.
Then you don't own both.
@@andreasbanan okay 😆
In 2019 i rear ended a Nissan Juke with my then 2004 Volvo V70 D5 at about 20 mph/ 30 Kph. Airbags went off and no much damage as such other than the windscreen and some cracked plastic. The insurance took the car as the cost to replace airbags and seat pretentioners would cost more than the value of the car.
The Nissan Juke had to go in for repairs for about £3000.
So regardless of the age of a Volvo, a 10 - 15 year old Volvo will still be safer than many new cars.
Also, nobody has ever died in a Volvo XC90.
A tanker truck overturned an XC90 in Latvia. Out of 4 passengers, unfortunately the driver died under the weight of 30 tons..
He is saying in UK @Alberts_Kviesis
That’s because nobody can afford an XC90.
Where did he say "uk"?@@scottysvensson
@melvin4553 he is trying to say UK r u happy now? 🙄
Just wondering. What about the rear passenger's head hitting the front seat in a Tesla? How it influenced results? Could this have caused the neck and head bending numbers to be distorted because the head was stopped by hitting the front seat? It was not mentioned in results of rear passengers. For me it seemed like the most dangerous thing on this crash test but no one focused on that. Can we assume that higher chest pressure of belt in Volvo might caused that rear passenger was protected of hitting to the front seat? Comparing green numbers and discussing whether Tesla or Volvo has smaller or higher numbers in the event that it means nothing for the health of the crew seems pointless to me. I would like to hear a more detailed explanation about the results of the rear passengers, because we could clearly see that in the case of the Tesla there was a head impact. Could it have been fatal? But great video, finally someone compared head to head Tesla and Volvo cars in crash test.
Same Q, it is obviously rear passenger in Tesla would get  concussion. Bot case neck injury possible broken rib. Even worse what if the passenger is taller person 200cm or 6,6 ft. I would like to see tall driver test results as there are more tall people now we are discriminated and our safety is being neglected as we have more risks of injury in case of accident!
I is very important to always have well fixed safety belts. It means that belts should be blocked and you should feel belt pressure on your body. You should be blocked by seat belts and have limited possibility to move your back. Good defence driving school always teach how to fasten your seat belts properly. The seat should be on the most vertical position possible (it is very good for your back health too). Forget thick jackets. It is not comfortable drive with fixed belts this way but it can save your life like once saved me. So there is no choice either comfort or safety.
Volvo will forever be the goat of cars.
This is the BEST crash test I've ever seen. BRAVO!
Volvo❤
Best Accident safety system ist this one who will help to AVOID COLLISION AT ALL !!! That's why I would buy only Tesla !
Teknicservice...
THAT WAS THE BIGGEST STRAIGHT OUT LIE in a long time.
Here is the truth:
Tesla is involved in more car accidents than ANY other car brand.
Yes I know that hurts
Volvo also got one lol
Great video! thanks God for the air bags….and the closed captions. 😊
Man they talk fast!
@@andreidede459I changed the speed of video to 1/2, so I could easily read the subtitles.
..god?
We need more focus on rear passengers. It seams rear passenger in Tesla bashed his head and got a concussion! Both back passengers got a neck injury and maybe a broken rib! What concerns everyone more is how safe are tall drivers and passengers?! Safety standards seem seriously outdated!!! What if rear passenger is 200cm (6,6ft) even greater injury! 🤯😱 It is obvious now rear part of front seat needs an airbag!
2 metros es una talla muy poco frecuente, esas personas deben comprar coches con techos más altos como los SUV.
Confused... It seemed like they were bashing the tesla for crumpling whereas the Volvo didn't... Its the crumpling that gave the tesla the lower imjury numbers to the front passengers, as more crumpling is more time to distribute the energy from the crash. More time significantly decreases the initial momentum change where damage is done.
Id be curious to see the same test performed at higher speeds, say each vehicle going 80mph and see if their theory of the tesla cabin not holding up sould be true. As by design, it is supposed to crumple to a certain point then stop.
Interesting results none the less. I would never have guessed it was THAT much less safe being a rear passenger in a tesla!!!
Looks like propaganda, Volvo is funded by the Chinese.
Volvo isnt even on top 10 lists from NHTSA, GNCAP or Euro NCAP.
DCar also places Tesla above Volvo on their recent tests.
Both cars crumpled correctly as they were deisgned to do so the tesla had full reached its limit as in no more crumple zone available it reached its firewall and stopped and with the some of the stress being transferred into the a pillar an extra 16km/h would intrude the occupants compartment where with the volvo the crumple zone has absorbed the impact but also utilised both sides of the car as its deigned to and still with an engine hasn't reached the firewall meaning at 80 in theory it should be safer then the tesla model y.
@@joewhite8079Thanks for the explanation! That's definitely interesting. I don't know what to think. As Tesla's actual frame outside the crumple zone seems ridiculously strong from what I've seen. People driving off cliffs rolling and other intense crashes and the frame is still rigid. If the frame is actually going in with this crash then yes that's a risk. In this test it appeared due to the crumple zone being 100% used up there was less force on the occupents, which makes sense. Granted it's also true if there was much higher energy/speeds in the crash the crumple zone would be less effective than if it had more crumple zone left. Tesla probably designs their crumple zones for average crash test speeds versus 80mph as average is what's tested. It would be interesting to see 80mph crash tests across the board with all vehicles.
Amazing test, collected a lot of data and for us viewers it was a great show !
Volvos platform of this car is from 2014 and doing this much better then Tesla. Crazy how good Volvo is. ❤ Volvo FOR LIFE!!!❤
Would like to know more about the rear passenger. Why is it safer to be in the front? Is it because of a lack of frontal airbags from the rear compartment? Isn't that against the traditional thinking that rear seats are safer? Maybe we should put a single child in the front seat for safety? What if we repeated the test but with child sized dummies? Also the video notes that there is no standard for rear seat crash limits, yet the numbers were shown in red. Red compared to what? Are they using the same numbers are the front seats? Anyway I give the video 5 stars.. amazing amount of work, even if it took me a while to understand the subtitles.. Chinese is a fast language when read thru English subtitles!
One question regarding comment at 8:38, that Volvo rear seat belt pre-tension did not deploy. Is it a malfunction or by test design?
Malfunction
it would be nice to have proper English sub-titles. A bit of the detail goes missing with the RUclips sub-titles.
Volvo for life!
珍貴的影片、科學的實測👍👍👍👍👍
期待後續數據分析評測🙏🙏🙏🙏🙏
Can you use china BYD to do a safety testing. Thank
would like to see the BYD vs Honda CRV tests as well.
Fantastic video! You should try an "old/new" car crash. I don't know how an 2010 Volvo S80 (for example) will perform in situations like this
Thanks again!!
Im in my 2nd XC60. Got tee boned my 1st at about 60 kmh. On passenger side. Definitely get the Volvo at least I know it won't catch fire and doors can open in a nasty accident so you can get out.
Yeah its definitely safer to go around with 80 liters of gas than a blinded battery
Your Volvo is 50 to a 100x more likely to catch fire in an accident than an EV. Also EV's perform very well in side impacts.
One woman drowned in USA in a Tesla because doors and windows didn't open/break.
@@iam5085 As do 400 others every year, in all other brands, for the same reason in the US. What is odd about this case was that usually the Model X opens it rear doors when getting flooded. Also Tesla doors can be opened mechanically from the inside, like all other cars. Main take from this is that FSD will be a massive life save when it comes to drunk people wanting to take their own car home.
@@JJSmith1100 Depends if you are awake but cannot get out or if you are unconsious. I understood the former was the case.
Great. You are best👏👏💪. Love from Romania. 👏👏👏
VOLVO XC60 DO NOT HAVE FRONT CENTER AIRBAG FOR AVOIDING HEAD BUMPING ON SIDE CRHASH OF DRIVER AND PASSENGER. ! TESLA DOES, ALSO LEXUS NX AND MERCEDES GLS DOES. HOW COME VOLVO DO NOT HAVE A FRONT CENTER AIR BAG? NOT AT THE XC60, 90, 40?
Can someone tell what drivetrain was in the XC60? I'm curious because of the weight comparison where they are so similar.
of course all drive train is in
@@느낌표-t1l I believe you missed the word 'what'.
很難得的實車測試，彌足珍貴。讚❤
非常值得參考的好節目！另外就是台灣有出現幾場事故是model Y高速側撞之後斷成兩截，不知道有沒有辦法針對這個問題進行測試，謝謝！
Are there any pictures or videos showing the model Y breaking in half? Searched on youtube but couldn't find it.
@@The._.Truth-.-ruclips.net/video/I9HZJtYw3u8/видео.htmlsi=Z_ec1eb0Q2JmSGON
@@The._.Truth-.-no, because it never happened
你是作夢夢到? 斷兩截?
真假啊？斷兩截的model Y💀
比亚迪什么时候试
Amazing test
Good show 👍
volvo後座安全帶滑脫了
但比tesla後座好一點
The production value of this series is insane. However the relative speed is not 128kmh as started in this video at 4:01. Mythbusters already corrected and proven this in a special episode.
Совершенно верно!
Nice
Great video, but incomplete. It's missing information on the injuries of the rear passengers
我比較想知道這是幾年的MY
круть! жгите ещё!
If you ever get T-boned, pray and hope you are in a Volvo and not in a Lexus or any other car.
Or Tesla since they're the highest rated
Rubbish.
美國坦克vs瑞典坦克，看來是美國坦克略勝一籌
是哪个车结果比较好呢？
Volvo won ❤
@@MrTribalsun Win by door can be opening.
That poison gas venting to Model Y cabin is no good. And you could see that passenger whiplash was not survivable. But it is good to know that the low tire pressure alarm was working.
what poison gas? You are talking about the "smoke" of the airbags, like the presenter said. It is in both vehicles and he said its not a problem. Who said the whiplash is not survivable? I would worry more about the compression of the chest in the Volvo although even that is not life threatening. both these cars did very well.
That's airbag smoke.... It happens even on a car from 1980s
Volvo fanboys trying to hold their breath
ปญอ
Volvo is geely, geely is Chinese... Everything is said
@@stephaneszczypa9598Volvo financial backer is Greely, as what Ford was prior... still doesn't stop them from making cars the way they have for years...
@@stephaneszczypa9598that explains the propaganda
Türkçe altyazı gelirse çok güzel olur
Most safe Chinese car is Chery amulet.
It's funny how no one speaks about that the dummy data proved to be on MY side and with huge margins
Obviously according to the explanations, the Volvo did better und would be able to sustain a crash at even higher speeds, whereas the (newer!) Model Y's structures were close to snapping completely
As a swedes and Tesla fan, Volvo i still nr1 in safety,
Too slow, only 64kph?
I'd expect it to be at least 50mph (80kph)
Or 40 % crash not 50 %.
its actually 128kph(64*2)
@@kenblock7350 no
합하면 128km속도인데 운전자들이 살아있다니 헐..
В передаче "разрушители мифов" на канале discovery проверяли это. Если коротко, скорость двух автомобилей не суммируется в плане разрушений.
感谢分享❤
Seems like a paid advertisement from Volvo.
The rear dummy moved so bad, there is no way it was getting better reads. The door was not opening properl, but had been explained...
the door opened enough and the tesla door couldn’t be opened after an hour, that was the only difference IMO
В Тесле шею сломал в Вольво живой а так да почти одинаковые😂
How is it paid? The rear dummy moved more because the volvo also went up during the collision because of its higher stance and hitting a lower car. The pre tensioner did there job enough to hold them in place.
@@ciankelly-zv5qk An hour is more than enough for the driver to exit the car or have someone help them out of the car. Plus, it looks like they weren't even using the physical door release which is easily accessible inside. It would've opened just fine had he used the manual release.
Should have run an XC90
That's a bigger class of car. You would run that against a Model X.
@@Josh-179 agreed 👍
more cinematic than ncap 🗿
I am not a fan of tesla products and I don't trust their hype 😂
Educate yourself
That's really unfortunate comment in a video where Tesla excellence is proven both front and rear passengers. The hype is real. :)
VOLVO ALWAYS AND EVER FOR LIFE
後座生存率真低阿......
載人上路真的要更謹慎小心
Tesla 💪🏻
Tesla🤢🤢🤮
@@johhag4401 cry more
Add 10kmh and Tesla would be a meatball.
All crashes are different and the Model Y has already proven to be the safest vehicle on the road by a wide margin. No, I don't have one
N’importe quoi. Le Y a obtenu la meilleure note de tous les SUV aux crash tests. Révisez vos aprioris !
No, Tesla has an actually better safety cage due to the batteries adding additional strength to the structure.
Fireball
@@jobathano1660You have wifi under your rock?
you should compare model x if you take xc90, in other hand volvo has an engine, tesla - empty front😂
Which won?
Volvo won!
@@vdn999No, it didn’t! Look at the test results. Tesla dummy has absorbed much less energy on all body parts, except for the knees (due to the Volvo knee airbag). That is what matters in a crash and not the visible cosmetics of the car. Tesla crumples more in some parts for a reason. And also the driver’s door could be opened easily on the Tesla and not so much on the Volvo. It is crucial if you can open the door in a crash and escape quickly or be taken out. So, in short - Tesla clearly won!
😂 watch at 11:11, Volvo no damage to the windscreen and roof, that means the Volvo body is more stronger than Tesla, 10km more and the driver will be dead in Tesla, because we can see clearly there is a very big damaged to the body structure, the Tesla driver will be smashed same like in Brilliance bs6, on Volvo the front wing come on top of door, so is not big problems to open the door, this is happened because Volvo used a strong steel when making wings, doors... One person crash in one winter my Volvo 855 1994, my car moved 1m from where I left parked, 855 had just a scratch on the rear bumper but anoter car( Opel zefira 2005)smashed rear lights, cracked rear bumper and bend rear wing.😊
@@vdn999 No
@@jeremie.d ?
I am guessing this Tesla is a RWD version? If so we can expect it not to catch fire during a front collision as there's almost no HV parts in the front crump zone. However the result could be different if it's an AWD version with HV wires and motor at front.
This type of textbook collision test would not be a problem to most Teslas or EVs. However some non-textbook accidents could be quite fatal. For example a road hazard that can deform the battery from bottom, or a T-bone collison. With today's Autopilot and collision prevention technologies front end collison is happening less and less often. Tests on EV fire safety should focus more on those type of non-textbook accidents.
A little more explanation: Test designers should focus more on the nature of the vehicles. They are quite different. As an example on ICE cars it's very easy to increase range however not easy to increase power, so traditionally power is a top measure of an ICE car. However on EVs it's just the opposite -- it's very easy for EVs to increase power however quite difficult to increase range. So on EVs range becomes a top metric. Similarly on safety tests EVs with flat battery at bottom would perform completely different than ICE cars with engine in the front. This should be taken into consideration when designing the tests.
I think RWD or not makes no difference here. The HV is immediately disconnected in case of a crash. That's why you see the vehicle getting out of power after a while.
นี่ถ้าเทสล่าชนในความเร็วที่มากกว่านี้อาจเกิดการลุกไหม้ของแบ็ตเตอร์รี่
The Volvo might catch fire also.
Non, batterie LFP. Elle ne prend pas feu.
Tesla never wins in the test but always wins in reality.
拿BYD很Volvo 碰碰看
Volvo car from Sweden are the best. Never buy one from outside Sweden.
VOLVO BEST !!!! tesla beeee fuuuuu
Amazing!
这种速度碰撞，2车后排的乘客都死了（脖子脊椎都断了）
8:30 шее кабздец
頂尖對決
The Tesla dummies had better protection scores but the presenter argues the Tesla has some risk concerns..... Hmmm ok....
Где же лучшие задний пасажир шею сломал)))
Tesla weighs thousands of pounds more then xc60 so it did really well
Same weight fool you can’t read? It’s within a handful of KG both under 2000kg
About 200 lbs more numbnut
🤯
Didn't you watch the video? The Tesla weighs 11 kg less
Tesla's battery will explode in a similar crash at 80 km/h. The Tesla is plagued with errors.
Which type of battery? In which test the battery exploded?
@@knobretep2063 Search for Tesla crashes at higher speeds. There are many situations where the car burst into flames because the battery cracked. I bet it is very hard to find footage on the internet of Tesla or any other electric vehicle exploding.
$$$👍👍👍。
Stupid when using 2 cars with similar color, don’t understand what are you talking about about.
English please
這種測試裡面放假人不夠準確啊 下次請真人下去做測試好嗎!
好的，下次邀请你坐进去。我们会在旁观看😊
就你去了
感谢你为科学挺身而去
TESLA best ........Volvo is Sh#t
tesla is shit
ปญอ
ahaha=)) if two cars collides at 64km/h each it doesn't sum up to 128km/h=)))) learn basic physics, China professionals... but so glamour....
Equal a head on collision at 64KPH to a solid wall but the car has double crumble zone. (However, it is only true if the two vehicles have approximately the same weight.)
@@The._.Truth-.- sorry, didn't get what do you mean by "car has double crumble zone"?
@@Shkvarka model Y crumble zone + the xc 60 crumble zone.
@@The._.Truth-.- не имеет значения сплошная стена или барьер. Разрушители мифов уже проводили тест. Разрушения в стену или сминаемый барьер на скорости 120 не равен разрушениям двух встречных автомобилей едущих со скоростью 60 каждая.
怎么不和相同是电车的小米su7对撞测试一下呢？
When i saw this, i know already the rear passenger in Tesla died on the spot for cervical spine fractures. RIP TESLA
Yes, rip Tesla. Safest car on earth according to euro NCAP, north American IIHS and Asian tests.
You're totally right though 😂