An old work colleague to me, about 30 odd years ago crashed in to a tree at about 62 mph or roughly 100 km/h with his then 15 year old Volvo 260, car was scapp but he survived but had injuries and was back at work 3 month later.
Mine, too. This Tesla Company was just made up from the ground. There is no experience. Volvo has made so much for car safety. Volvo stays of course the king in terms of safety.
@@monsterchannel24 the car industry moving to electrics is really sad in my opinion. An electric does not do it for me and i don't want to give up combustion engines for as long as i can. And electric cars are not the way to reduce emissions. If everyone on the planet got a electric car now it would be 40% worse for the planet. Lithium mining is very bad for the environment and also the batteries are not nearly efficient enough. Also countries like china and russia mostly rely on coal fueled power plants and more electricity needed needs more of those plants that they still probably will use. That is worse for nature than modern combustion engines for most part. Even the U.S. still uses coal power in some places i believe. Electric cars and their batteries are not efficient enough yet and also the way that people make the power for it. All the time also fuel burning cars become more and more efficient and cleaner. Also there will be cleaner versions of diesel and gasoline. Airplanes also can not be electric and probably won't be for a long time. I heard sometime that to make airplane fuel, you need lots of barrels of oil to get the aircraft fuel, if i remember correctly, about 10 barrels of oil for one barrel of fuel or something, and there will be leftover oil from the process too, which can be used to make a couple barrels of diesel or gasoline. This is what i heard from a co-worker, but can't remember it in full detail how he explained it. Combustion engines and the fuel will still get much more efficient and cleaner, and maybe electric cars could be better when the industry moves towards graphite batteries
@@nameless_4084 A BEV powered entirely by a coal powerplant is less pollutant than an ICE vehicle. This is because both electric cars and coal powerplants are much more efficient then ICE. And lithium mining is not terrible for the environment but it is somewhat harmful. Not nearly as harmful as driving an ICE car for 10 years though.
Volvo uses SIPS , this creates a survival space for the occupant . the whole seat can be moved several inches to the other side of the car . this is like a crumple zone . the crumple zone absorbs the energy instead of the occupant absorbing the energy
Something else to consider that may make you question results of Tesla vs Volvo is Not all Volvo’s have dedicated SIPS. You can usually tell but the weight of the door which do and do not have SIPS, a SIPS Volvo will have a much heavier door (and vehicle) but also inside of the door jams on front near the bottom will be a SIPS logo in the frame. Also airbags in the seats and will fire upon severe side impact to protect you even further. Not to say if your Volvo lacks dedicated SIPS that doesn’t have side impact protection, they all do, however with dedicated SIPS their is much more protection and weight. As an example, my GF’s XC60 SUV 2012 or 2013 can’t remember doesn’t have dedicated SIPS, no logo in door frame, and doors feel really light compared to my XC70’s doors which the wagon does bare SIPS logo.. also my XC70 weighs more than her XC60, my wagon is 5160 pounds and her SUV is I think 4500 something pounds. In this video the S60 shown doesn’t appear to have dedicated dedicated SIPS, no secondary certain airbag firing to overlap the main certain airbag nor do I see airbag in the side of the seat firing to cushion the impact even further. Also by the way the door deforms and only slowed once reaches the frame of the vehicle like door was made of butter is another indication that maybe lacking internal re-enforcement that SIPS has.
@@Xanthopteryx just checked VIDA because I installed radar based BLIS into my 2011 XC70 upgrading it from camera system to radar based BLIS (SODL/SODR BLIS) and needs calibration for the mod and only way to calibrate is to use VIDA including the cracked version of VIDA to calibrates. I noticed on the list of features/function of my car that the line for “Side Impact Protection” is marked “SIPS” which I found odd for it to even list that. I have several SIPS logos around my car.. specially at the B-Pillar on bottom side after you open the door. But also SIPS Logo on the corner of my windshield. Hmmm. So out of curiosity I plugged my laptop with VIDA into our 2012 XC60 and that “Side Inpact Protection” line is only marked as “Yes” Not SIPS. No SIPS Logos in the cabin anywhere on the XC60 either, not on the glass, not on B-Pillar and the door feels about half as heavy as my XC70’s door too. Hmmmmm. Something is weird here.. making me wonder if maybe SIPS is only standard in certain markets maybe? I know my XC70 is international market vehicle with American market destination it was an over seas delivery (OSD) Vehicle built in the Torslandaverken (Sweden) factory. But the XC60 we just got used from Volvo because my GF wanted an SUV and for some reason wanted that one.
@@Honeypot-x9s My '07 S60 has SIPS and shows its all over the door wells. It also has a similar tech from the one shown in the vid where in the event of a side impact, the center console crumples and the driver's seat moves
The Volvo channels the G forces both upper and lower via the b pillar. Also there are tubular structures channeling the forces into a crash box located in the center on the Volvo. This is part of the SIPS system. Boron steel anti-intrusion beams are also inside the Volvo doors. Volvo has real life data gathered from crashes since 1969. That research and data collection has allowed Volvo to have some of the safest vehicles on the road today. I’d rather have a crushed Volvo than a crushed rib cage as in the Tesla.
This video is side impact, you don’t want a crumple zone on a side impact as you are only a few inches from the door. This isn’t a front impact. The solid base of the Tesla means the body of the car can slide across the ground. You will have a crushed Volvo and and crushed rib cage while being trapped til fire fighters cut your body out.
Plus all Volvos have rollbars in the roof connecting the B pillar with eachother and the same with the C pillar th distribute any forced through the roof down to the other side of the car. Also, Volvo has their own Crash investigation team called out to any accidents involving a Volvo in and around Gothenburg where they gather all the data relevant to the crash to be able to asses the results of the crash to see where improvement can be made.
This just shows that crumple zones make sense. Your car is totally smashed but the drivers is okay. I would rather be in a car with a good crumple zone that absorbs a lot of the energy than be in a vehicle that has less damage but I have a broken neck because my head accelerated quickly.
@@s.n.6211 So a new car company, positively a baby compared to most auto companies and it already makes some of the safest cars on the road. Give credit where it's due people.
Another thing to consider is that in the small overlap crash test of a model s, it only received an “Acceptable” rating by the iihs. Then if you take a look at the model s the HIC was over 500. The Tesla also had peak gs of 106 from hard contact. Then take a look at the Volvo XC90 and the HIC criteria is only 37 without any hard contact.
That is to be nice to Tesla. Old Volvo is safest car out there. Except compared to new Volvo that is safer than the safest car. So you do not want to kick someone lying down.
@@Cars-N-Jets And you should do some research, AND, use some source evaluation. Just a few examples from the link: * The engine in like a Volvo is actually Part of the safety structure. * Compare the dummy readings between Tesla and Volvo on for example a small overlap and you will see that the Volvo dummy has it way better. * In small overlap, it was higher risk of injury in the Tesla compared to Volvo. * Tesla S failed twice(!) in Small overlap. And the problem was the same, both times, despite Tesla said they solved the issue after the first test. After the second fail, Elon said it was a faulty test... * There is much more to safety than just crash tests. That is why Volvo have their own crash investigation team that has collected data from around 40.000 real world accidents (with around 80.000 occupants). In fact, a lot of the safety data is shared with the world, for free!!! * Did you know that in the UK, NO ONE has been killed in an XC90 since it was launched there in 2004? * Did you know that Volvo have special seats with a spine impact protection built in, in case of a runoff? And you can keep going. Safety is: Active safety: AEB, design of the interior, brakes, stability control, system to detect if the driver is actually looking actively on the road, seat belt and so on. Passive safety: Structure of the car, seat belt, seats, design of the interior and so on. Check out what NHTS tests......
For who doesn't know: if you crashed and stopped so fast, you'll likely be more severely injured. That's why you want the car's crumple zone to absorb that energy
I'm a fan of both companies, but in terms of safety here, I'd have to go with the volvo. SIPS shifts the seat to the centre, car crumples so your head doesn't. Though the Tesla is definitely more sturdier, it may not help as much in a crash. Both cars are super safe though compared to some others out there.
This idea that Tesla doesn't crumple is silly, sure in this one test it didn't as much as the volvo. Look at the other tests though. Tesla engineers know something about what they are doing. A collab between Volvo and Tesla would be great.
I think its good to see how the head swings around in the vehicles. In the Volvo it doesn't leave the headrest in the tesla hmmm you might have some seriously damage to your neck. 4:35
Funny how ppl dont understand that the volvo is acting just as intended. The numbers provided in this video shows the Tesla driver is way more damaged due to the high G-forces from the crash.
In the small overlap crash test model 3 got the door hinges bushed 8inches back and inwards. The door sill also collapsed. It had moderate risk of of lower feet injury. A 2017 subaru impreza had much less cabin damage in the same test. With barely no damage to the door, door sill and the door hinge area. Subaru does use 60% high strength steel. It may not be the case on those soft tesla chassis.
Lmao the amount of Tesla fanboys tho Edit: also, the center console is also a crumple zone, which allows the seat to move inward to prevent the driver from being crushed. Overall, I’d say the Volvo is the safer car here
ICE powered cars are mass produced since more than 100 years. EVs are almost twice as efficient, especially under low RPM. Volve may be the saver car right now, according to the forces on your body. The Cybertruck seems very dangerous for pedestrians. Tesla is evolving quickly. The new Headrests made their cars a lot safer for Children and people over 185cm. Quality Controll will be better when they have to meet European production Standards because of the Berlin Gigafactory. I think it is very likely for Tesla to even beat Volvo at their Game.
@@Cars-N-Jets Do you have any knowledge in car safety. That Tesla because it dosn't have crumple zones means that the driver takes the forces of the accident. Also the Cybertruck is gonna be one of the unsafest cars on the road.
@@Kermiitti i agree with you if you look at the numbers it proofs volvo is safer and when people say tesla has better safety features they don't realise other car brands have that too😂😂
tl;dr Deformation of the car during a crash dissipates some of the energy of the crash, meaning the passengers experience a less severe environment. By Musk's logic the safest car in a crash is one that doesn't deform at all, basically a solid steel box, which is obviously nonsense
The car can slide you genius. The front of the Tesla is soft. The side is not because you are a few inches away from the side of the car. What food is a soft side of YOU are part of the cushion?
Incredible. Tesla fanboys going nuts in this comment section. It's so obvious that Volvo is superior when it comes to safety. They've been doing it since 1969 and it's the single most important aspect of their car design. Volvo designs the car around safety whilst other manufacturers add safety to everything else a car offers. This is a distinctly different approach. If you've ever been to their crash test facility you would never doubt this again. By the way, I'm not a Tesla hater. I like Tesla's for what they are but claiming that they're safer than Volvo is ludicrous (P90D ludicrous :P).
Tesla get one hell of a wiphlash. Volvo deploys side airbag and absorbs impact. The seat is able to move inside the cabin to make sure the impact doesnt crush the body
@No U When it comes to safety tech, just about EVERYONE copies volvo. That's a good thing. You don't think people are copying Tesla's battery tech? I would applaud Tesla for copying every last bit of Volvo safety tech. Volvo should do the same. Saves lives.
Correct. For the record, Xc40 now has an All electric version with a FRUNk, and Volvo had to add ADDITIONAL structural elements in the front crash structure to be able to offer equal safety compared to the IC xc40.
@@ECLEAT Old Volvos have a high quality in ALL parts, better then AudiBmwMercedes & Co. Also they have the best seats and spareparts are always availible. But since the last 10 or 15 years they are just normal cars like others - sorry.
G Forces on driver are higher if the body is stiffer , true. Effect on the passenger are - one is squashed dead and the other has a good chance. I prefer my passenger not to BE the crumple zone. You go on correctly to mention side airbags help the head in these side impact situations. I can attest personally to this fact, having been hit in the side by a Kenworth semi and then the concrete median barrier on a Melbourne freeway in 2012. The side airbags saved our heads big time.
Thing is the Volvo kinda does both. First, all the space between pole and driver is used to absorb energy. Simultaneously, as the side airbags catch the driver and slowly accelerate them sideways whilst the SIPS maintains a survival space and moves the seat into the center console, deforming it (if needed). And the passenger benefit from the extra crumple zone space for a less harsh crash. And the fact that is a 2010 Volvo outperforming an advanced 2017 car with a margin to spare really shows how far ahead Volvo is
I am driving a 2012 Volvo XC70 wagon. The best car from the 2012 Volvo lineup. I like Volvos and I am a dieHard wagon fan. I have driven all Tesla Models and I would exchange my Volvo for any used Tesla in a heartbeat. I look forward for electric Volvos, for sure they are coming. You can order the your EV Polestar already. I would still go with Tesla.
Tesla fans!!! Not the speed kills you! The sudden deceleration will broke your neck! Crumple zones are vital (see Volvo crash)!!! Which one prefer: Leg/hip injury (non fatal), or broken neck (fatal)?
Tesla Model 3: "...In the more severe side pole impact, dummy readings of rib compression indicated marginal protection of the chest" Volvo S60 : "...In both the side barrier impact and the more severe side pole test, protection of critical parts of the body was good or adequate" EURONCAP.
I like Elon and the Tesla, but what Tesla fails to understand in crash safety is a safety cell. The safety cell is meant to safeguard the occupants. Everything outside this safety cell is designed to crumple, reduce g loads and dissipate the energy away from from the occupants. Unfortunately Tesla thinks that the whole car should be a safety cell,with little to no crumple zones. This equates to high g loads and energy being transferred to the occupants, as demonstrated in the crash data. It may look impressive to the untrained eye but is a safety fail.
Most of the NHTSA crash tests are straight out of the 1970s. They do not have the crash test facilities that Volvo has in their safety center in Sweden. The Volvo Safety Center can do crash tests at all angles and with both cars moving at the same time. And Volvo has duplicated 10s of thousands actual real world crashes. Volvo builds their cars to survive real world crashes, and tests much more than just the stilted simplistic crash tests where the crash angles are straight-on, or at 90 degree angles. Does Tesla or the NHTSA know what would happen at a 35 degree side impact crash with both cars moving? NO! Volvo does though. ..... And the Model X got a 5-star rating on the Rollover test, the only SUV to have ever gotten that rating. But that Rollover test is the biggest joke of all. In it, a car is pushed side-ways into a sand pit to see it's tendency to roll. There is NO forward motion, and does not test Electronic Stability Control. ... What a joke! .... In fact the ESC system on the Volvo XC60 have did better than the Model X in the Moose test. The Volvo XC60 does better in electronic stability control than the Model X. ruclips.net/video/x_H4zhjLe60/видео.html ruclips.net/video/Sv9Oo5TMiWw/видео.html The XC60 passes at 77 kph, and the Model X fails at 72 kph.
@@Cars-N-Jets Again the tired old refrain that Tesla's are the safest because of the NHTSA obsolete tests, especially the Rollover test, which is a joke. A car is pushed sideways into a sand pit with no forward motion. It doesn't even test Electronic Stability Control. It seems you didn't read my post, nor did you watch the above video.
777Outrigger ruclips.net/video/oL6sBXxWG7k/видео.html I’m not stupid. I know my stuff. Do real research www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/tesla/model-3-4-door-sedan/2020 dude this is a lying video and misleading u. And you believed it. 😂🤣 and I tweeted your BS out on twitter for people to laugh at you. Ya want real facts? Ok well here ya go #Dumdum www.tesla.com/impact-report/2019. www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport. ruclips.net/video/oL6sBXxWG7k/видео.html
@@Cars-N-Jets - Nothing you've posted contradicts the stuff I posted. I wasted my time watching your video. Lots of great anecdotal stuff. There's lots of great anecdotal stuff on Volvo too. 1. Volvo does not build it's cars to pass the simplistic crash tests of the IIHS , the NHTSA, on NCAP. Volvo builds it's cars based it's database of 10s of thousands of actual crashes. Volvo technicians often beat first responders to accidents in Sweden. The crash testing facilities of the IIHS, the NHTSA, and NCAP are inferior to Volvo's. As a Tesla fanboi you should understand the importance of gathering real-world data because you guys always talking about the real-world data Tesla is gathering on self driving makes Tesla's lead on autonomous driving insurmountable. Volvo has decades of gathering data on real world car accidents. 10s of thousands of actual accidents. 2. In 2018, Thatcham Research said that no one had been killed in an XC90 in the UK, and that Volvo had sold just over 50,000 XC90s since 2002. www.thedrive.com/news/20203/...ash-in-britain In a 2015, a three year IIHS study of 2011 car Models had the XC90 with 0 fatalities.. The XC90 was the only Volvo to have the requisite millions of years of driving time to be considered in the study. So Volvo was 1 for 1 in the study. The XC90 has only gotten safer since that time. By the end of 2019 Tesla has sold about 72,000 Model Xs in the US, and 3 people have died in a Model X in the US. And here's a death count for Tesla's for you. www.tesladeaths.com/ 3. I'll run this by you again for you reading pleasure. The Volvo XC60 does better in electronic stability control than the Model X. ruclips.net/video/x_H4zhjLe60/видео.html ruclips.net/video/Sv9Oo5TMiWw/видео.html The XC60 passes at 77 kph, and the Model X fails at 72 kph. 4. Women are 71% more like;y to be injured in a car crash and 17% more likely to be killed. Volvo is addressing this problem more than any other car company, and is releasing it's database of 10s of thousands of actual accidents for other car companies to address this problem. Volvo is doing stuff in safety that Tesla hasn't even thought of yet. ruclips.net/video/0MSiSWl10VM/видео.html 5. Elon made a fool of himself when he compared a Model 3 and an S60 in the Pole Test.. He totally doesn't have a clue about the Volvo SIPS, and how it moves the driver away from the door in a side impact. As this video shows, the dummy in the S60 received less impact than the one in the Model 3. And Tesla fanbois laughing at me, eh? Oh my, I'm crushed.
777Outrigger Tesla deaths.com is Fake you idiot. TSLAQ idiots on twitter make that shit up that's not true. They have no fucking source, you idiot. This video is fake and is misleading you. You're such an idiot believing in a fake lying video. I'm not as stupid as you and I actually do my research unlike you.
POTATO Same thing would happen with every other truck is someone got hit. It’ll have the same safety systems from the S & 3 which means it will automatically stop if it senses the car is getting too close.
Model S and model 3 was also beaten by 2015 Subaru wrx in small overlap crash test. Moderate risk of injury to lower leg in tesla. No risk of lower leg injury in the much smaller Subaru wrx.
That volvo is from years past to tesla, the disadvantage of volvo is the weight of the engine, an electrician does not have it, yet in all other tests it is better volvo
@@tanishatanuja Your silly boy comments don't matter to me, I forgive you for being a kid . Every person shows their education and mine is to ignore you
Mach Mach the seat has rigid bars built into it that make the seat and therefore the person stay at safe distance from the intrusion, part of SIPS, this has also been a feature since 2004 on Volvo’s...
@@CarThings___ I know it's a pro Tesla site I linked but the results are strait from NHTSA and NFPA. The newer Euro stats are showing similar results. Basically if it's fire you're worried about you're statistically 8x safer in a Tesla. Thanks for informing me about the Volvo's cool seat btw, I looked it up for kicks, pretty smart tech. The center console is even designed to make more room if needed. www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-s3x-are-8x-less-likely-to-catch-fire-q2-2019-safety-report/
@@machmach5006 Dont forget to take in count that: When volvo will be crushed that critically so sips and every crumple zone will be already used and you will die because you will be smashed, in that crash you will die even in tesla, because hit will be that hard, that your internals will be mixed out.
What will happen with the battery once the pole penetrates the battery case at higher velocity. My guess is fire, and its not your typical slow burning fire...
@@dsociala No one Model 3 has caught fire to date. It's different battery than Model S or X. I recommend you this video: ruclips.net/video/2IzVC-FGdFw/видео.html
@@pmj_studio4065 I recommend you going back to school. Once more go back to physics .... when volvo will be colapsed that much, that it will crush you, i say over 60 km/h. That in that case, in tesla, your internals will be mixed out from extreme overload, because battery will still holds rigidity and impact will be deadly, + there is still chance of fire. I still dont understand how people can be so stupid, buy a tank and crash it in 50km/h to the steel wall. You will be probably dead ...
@@BugThorn under certain speed in Tesla you would be uninjured thanks to the rigidity. Above that speed, you could die from overload. Meanwhile in Volvo you could be crushed at almost every speed, just more or less seriously (this test was ~50 km/h, right?). In Tesla you would be slowed down by airbags. In Volvo you might end up on the object you hit. It depends on speed and still on what's safer - overload or injuries. *and remember - Tesla is 5 times less likely to catch a fire*
@Paweł Buczyński In Russia, a Model 3 exploded after a car crash, because the battery was penetrated. And the occupants had luck, that they get out of the Model 3, because firefighters can't save people, when they get stuck. They have to let the car to burn out even with the people in it for their own safety unfortunately.
For adult occupant euro cap scores both cars 96%. Child occupant 86% tesla, 84% volvo. Vulnerable road users (pedestrians) both cars score 74%. Safety assist 76% volvo, 94% tesla. That's euro ncap info. So picking one specific (and perhaps unusual) test case to make the claims in video here is disengenious. Just click bait really.
Engine is a really good crumple zone at small/medium impact, and if the crash is very hard it brokens off. In tesla there empty space and in hard frontal crashes the crashing object just passes through the "frunk" and directly hits interior of the car.
Zero Intrusion. LEAST Occupant deaths. Look it up. Volvo independently investigates all crashes in Sweden that involve a Volvo to learn and improve their cars. FYI: See what they are doing for the Xc40 All electric version with a FRUNK. Volvo had to add ADDITIONAL structural elements in the front crash structure to be able to offer equal safety compared to the IC xc40.
the floor plan of the Tesla is certianly stronger than that of the volvo ... but how about the glass roof ? yes cars occasionally wrap around the tree but other types of accidents are more common. personally i would rather have a strong roof than a strong floor in a car. all this really proves is that presentations like the one Elon gave are inherently misleading. always get both sides of every story before making up your mind.
@@koruki i know i know - super strong tesla glass - as demonstrated by Elon himself during CyberTruck reveal. well, if the roof doesn't fall off first as they occasionally do in Teslas.
Tesla uses the battery to stop the pole from intruding. It is remarkable how little intrusion there is- I saw a post pole test Model 3 and it looked like a small dent compared to the many other pole tests I have seen. Of course that means less energy absorbed by the car, but it would have been useful to compare HIC not just accelerations.
Let's put this to a test why won't you ride on a Volvo and have your wife ride on the Tesla and do a side collision test then I would truly believe your research 🙈 come back with the video summary 👍.
Volvo already done that. Over 40.000 real world accidents with almost 80.000 occupants. Yes, it's true. They have investigated over 40.000!!! real world accidents during the past 50 years! Why? To understand what happens in a real world crash. They also check medical journals, x-ray images and so on from people who might have been hurt. So, Volvo KNOW what counts. Tesla... has no idea... They even failed with a 'simple' thing as a seat belt in model S. Twice! Then they said the test was faulty....
Elon was showing his profound ignorance of the Volvo SIPS system, which moves the seat away from the door and crushes the center console. You can see the S60 seat moving away from the impact at 4:50, and the Model 3 seat staying firmly in place. More intrusion by the pole, but less impact on the passenger because of less acceleration and movement away from the door. Sorry, Elon, Tesla is not safer.
These Tesla people including the people who buy them including the people who make them they are so snobby and rude and arrogant and think that they’re the best thing in the world. It’s really disrespectful because Volvo invented safety for vehicles they were the first car company to invent whips and seatbelts. As well as child booster seats how can you just smirk and try to take that from that when they invented it it’s disrespectful I hate Tesla drivers, the cars everything about them.
Yeah, so all the test facilities are wrong, in giving the Tesla the better rating. As they are the people who measure the data and evaluate them, I guess you know it better than these guys do?
Though logical when you pick the g force numbers it doesn’t really add up on side impact when the crumple zone is the driver seat. Yes less G’s because it’s soft but you don’t want to be crushed like you see in the video. The airbags in both cars will reduce the g’s on the body. You cant just pick G force numbers like it was a front impact where the area of the car that’s crushed is the engine bay instead of the human. Oh look I got some bad whiplash instead of being crushed and trapped in a car. That and not to mention every safety testing organisation in different continents have confirmed Tesla’s safety ratings.
This is stupid realy who is the best, lol YOu buye the car you like and feel safe in. Its like winter tiers with or without taps you selecct the one you feel safest with as you are gonna focus on driving when you drive a car not that if my car or tiers are bether you use the one you feel safest in, and then if the one have a small nr bether then the other it dosent meet its safer- The tesla have much more anti crash software and hardware then the Volvo so the volvo wil crash more anyway and the Tesla will avoid more crashes then the volvo so then the Tesla is the safest car anyway.
Well in this specific test that may be true, however in most other tests, Tesla outperforms Volvo. Not to forget Tesla’s autopilot, which if you look up on RUclips, has prevented many crashes.
well that was the test for the model s on iihs but they realeased the model 3 tests which outperforms volvo in some test But lets just say that i like both brands for safety
@@AriensRotokiller they both got same rating, but look at injury measurements. equivalent volvos did a lot better and model 3's bottom frame is peeled off. What do you mean that model 3 outperformed????????????
You must be really not smart or know $hit about physics. You have much bigger chances of surviving in Volvo (as said in the video). Because in normal crashes (not 100mph< ones) people are dying only because of high g forces and not deformation. Of course volvo could have made a car same rigid as tesla did, but it would be unsafe. And if the impact is at higher speed, Volvo's crumple zone "ends" and it becomes rigid. So tesla < Volvo :)
This is a great video, showing how complex car safety is. Volvo is focusing on saving the passengers, Tesla on saving the car 😂
Volvo for life 🙏
Corect!
Crushing and wrapping the cars body around the driver is not what I call “saving” the passenger.
@@koruki That's right, why let the vehicle reduce the Forces, if you can pass them on to the driver.
@@Wankdorf183 you would have more damage to yourself if you where in the Volvo
An old work colleague to me, about 30 odd years ago crashed in to a tree at about 62 mph or roughly 100 km/h with his then 15 year old Volvo 260, car was scapp but he survived but had injuries and was back at work 3 month later.
Volvo's safety record speaks for itself.
DroftheDeep ruclips.net/video/bkayYiwrjyQ/видео.html
That it’s drivers pottle around while Tesla drivers drive faster?
@@Cars-N-Jets of course you’re going to be bias toward Tesla lol. Your profile name say it all.
@DrofttheDeep yes
Well to be fair Volvo's first priority is probably safety given the number of inventions they employed on their trucks
Future safest cars will be fully electric Polestar and Volvo cars. Which will be my future cars. I'm driving a Volvo now.
Mine, too. This Tesla Company was just made up from the ground. There is no experience. Volvo has made so much for car safety. Volvo stays of course the king in terms of safety.
I am also driving a volvo, 2005 v70. But i do not want an electric car ever. I just hope volvo will never give up combustion engines.
@@nameless_4084 They will. Like all other manufacturers. Our kids also want to live on this planet.
@@monsterchannel24 the car industry moving to electrics is really sad in my opinion. An electric does not do it for me and i don't want to give up combustion engines for as long as i can. And electric cars are not the way to reduce emissions. If everyone on the planet got a electric car now it would be 40% worse for the planet. Lithium mining is very bad for the environment and also the batteries are not nearly efficient enough. Also countries like china and russia mostly rely on coal fueled power plants and more electricity needed needs more of those plants that they still probably will use. That is worse for nature than modern combustion engines for most part. Even the U.S. still uses coal power in some places i believe. Electric cars and their batteries are not efficient enough yet and also the way that people make the power for it. All the time also fuel burning cars become more and more efficient and cleaner. Also there will be cleaner versions of diesel and gasoline. Airplanes also can not be electric and probably won't be for a long time. I heard sometime that to make airplane fuel, you need lots of barrels of oil to get the aircraft fuel, if i remember correctly, about 10 barrels of oil for one barrel of fuel or something, and there will be leftover oil from the process too, which can be used to make a couple barrels of diesel or gasoline. This is what i heard from a co-worker, but can't remember it in full detail how he explained it. Combustion engines and the fuel will still get much more efficient and cleaner, and maybe electric cars could be better when the industry moves towards graphite batteries
@@nameless_4084
A BEV powered entirely by a coal powerplant is less pollutant than an ICE vehicle. This is because both electric cars and coal powerplants are much more efficient then ICE.
And lithium mining is not terrible for the environment but it is somewhat harmful. Not nearly as harmful as driving an ICE car for 10 years though.
Volvo uses SIPS , this creates a survival space for the occupant . the whole seat can be moved several inches to the other side of the car . this is like a crumple zone . the crumple zone absorbs the energy instead of the occupant absorbing the energy
Something else to consider that may make you question results of Tesla vs Volvo is Not all Volvo’s have dedicated SIPS. You can usually tell but the weight of the door which do and do not have SIPS, a SIPS Volvo will have a much heavier door (and vehicle) but also inside of the door jams on front near the bottom will be a SIPS logo in the frame. Also airbags in the seats and will fire upon severe side impact to protect you even further. Not to say if your Volvo lacks dedicated SIPS that doesn’t have side impact protection, they all do, however with dedicated SIPS their is much more protection and weight. As an example, my GF’s XC60 SUV 2012 or 2013 can’t remember doesn’t have dedicated SIPS, no logo in door frame, and doors feel really light compared to my XC70’s doors which the wagon does bare SIPS logo.. also my XC70 weighs more than her XC60, my wagon is 5160 pounds and her SUV is I think 4500 something pounds.
In this video the S60 shown doesn’t appear to have dedicated dedicated SIPS, no secondary certain airbag firing to overlap the main certain airbag nor do I see airbag in the side of the seat firing to cushion the impact even further. Also by the way the door deforms and only slowed once reaches the frame of the vehicle like door was made of butter is another indication that maybe lacking internal re-enforcement that SIPS has.
@@Honeypot-x9s XC60 2012 have SIPS. SIPS was introduced 1991 and are in all new models launched after that.
@@Honeypot-x9s yea my 2016 V60 which is the same basic car in this video just wagon form literally has the sips logo in the b pillar
@@Xanthopteryx just checked VIDA because I installed radar based BLIS into my 2011 XC70 upgrading it from camera system to radar based BLIS (SODL/SODR BLIS) and needs calibration for the mod and only way to calibrate is to use VIDA including the cracked version of VIDA to calibrates. I noticed on the list of features/function of my car that the line for “Side Impact Protection” is marked “SIPS” which I found odd for it to even list that. I have several SIPS logos around my car.. specially at the B-Pillar on bottom side after you open the door. But also SIPS Logo on the corner of my windshield. Hmmm. So out of curiosity I plugged my laptop with VIDA into our 2012 XC60 and that “Side Inpact Protection” line is only marked as “Yes” Not SIPS. No SIPS Logos in the cabin anywhere on the XC60 either, not on the glass, not on B-Pillar and the door feels about half as heavy as my XC70’s door too. Hmmmmm.
Something is weird here.. making me wonder if maybe SIPS is only standard in certain markets maybe? I know my XC70 is international market vehicle with American market destination it was an over seas delivery (OSD) Vehicle built in the Torslandaverken (Sweden) factory. But the XC60 we just got used from Volvo because my GF wanted an SUV and for some reason wanted that one.
@@Honeypot-x9s My '07 S60 has SIPS and shows its all over the door wells. It also has a similar tech from the one shown in the vid where in the event of a side impact, the center console crumples and the driver's seat moves
The Volvo channels the G forces both upper and lower via the b pillar. Also there are tubular structures channeling the forces into a crash box located in the center on the Volvo. This is part of the SIPS system. Boron steel anti-intrusion beams are also inside the Volvo doors. Volvo has real life data gathered from crashes since 1969. That research and data collection has allowed Volvo to have some of the safest vehicles on the road today. I’d rather have a crushed Volvo than a crushed rib cage as in the Tesla.
Hector Vazquez Looked to me like the Volvo allowed you to be CRUSHED gently.
This video is side impact, you don’t want a crumple zone on a side impact as you are only a few inches from the door. This isn’t a front impact. The solid base of the Tesla means the body of the car can slide across the ground. You will have a crushed Volvo and and crushed rib cage while being trapped til fire fighters cut your body out.
Plus all Volvos have rollbars in the roof connecting the B pillar with eachother and the same with the C pillar th distribute any forced through the roof down to the other side of the car.
Also, Volvo has their own Crash investigation team called out to any accidents involving a Volvo in and around Gothenburg where they gather all the data relevant to the crash to be able to asses the results of the crash to see where improvement can be made.
This just shows that crumple zones make sense. Your car is totally smashed but the drivers is okay. I would rather be in a car with a good crumple zone that absorbs a lot of the energy than be in a vehicle that has less damage but I have a broken neck because my head accelerated quickly.
You sir have a big brain, So protect it
Id rather have a fucked up car than body
@@darnellquesnel1832 yup. Can always buy a new car, can't say the same about a body
@@edward3709 explain what body is left if you ARE the crumple-zone
@@koruki that will not be the case
Harder doesn´t mean safer
Nothing beats Volvo for safety. Intrusion is one thing but energy dissipation and absorption must also be considered and SIPS wins out in this case.
This can only be solved by crashing a Volvo into a Tesla lol
doesn't it happen on road sometimes?
Would you want a car hitting your arm and crashing you
@@joycemukui2665 no, who would, that’s why I research these things. Volvo and Tesla are both very good, even the best in terms of safety.
@@CarThings___ No, Volvo is the leader in termes of safety, followed by Mercedes-Benz and than comes Tesla at the third place. I'm very sure...
@@s.n.6211 So a new car company, positively a baby compared to most auto companies and it already makes some of the safest cars on the road.
Give credit where it's due people.
Another thing to consider is that in the small overlap crash test of a model s, it only received an “Acceptable” rating by the iihs. Then if you take a look at the model s the HIC was over 500. The Tesla also had peak gs of 106 from hard contact. Then take a look at the Volvo XC90 and the HIC criteria is only 37 without any hard contact.
Amg ruclips.net/video/bkayYiwrjyQ/видео.html
They tested the older Volvo rather the new more rugged volvo
That is to be nice to Tesla. Old Volvo is safest car out there. Except compared to new Volvo that is safer than the safest car. So you do not want to kick someone lying down.
Xanthopteryx ruclips.net/video/bkayYiwrjyQ/видео.html your wrong
@@Cars-N-Jets Hahaha. Referring to a Tesla fan video? He is wrong in several areas and exaggerates in other. Please use some source criticism.
Xanthopteryx ruclips.net/video/oL6sBXxWG7k/видео.html you should do some real research.
@@Cars-N-Jets And you should do some research, AND, use some source evaluation.
Just a few examples from the link:
* The engine in like a Volvo is actually Part of the safety structure.
* Compare the dummy readings between Tesla and Volvo on for example a small overlap and you will see that the Volvo dummy has it way better.
* In small overlap, it was higher risk of injury in the Tesla compared to Volvo.
* Tesla S failed twice(!) in Small overlap. And the problem was the same, both times, despite Tesla said they solved the issue after the first test. After the second fail, Elon said it was a faulty test...
* There is much more to safety than just crash tests. That is why Volvo have their own crash investigation team that has collected data from around 40.000 real world accidents (with around 80.000 occupants). In fact, a lot of the safety data is shared with the world, for free!!!
* Did you know that in the UK, NO ONE has been killed in an XC90 since it was launched there in 2004?
* Did you know that Volvo have special seats with a spine impact protection built in, in case of a runoff?
And you can keep going. Safety is:
Active safety: AEB, design of the interior, brakes, stability control, system to detect if the driver is actually looking actively on the road, seat belt and so on.
Passive safety: Structure of the car, seat belt, seats, design of the interior and so on.
Check out what NHTS tests......
For who doesn't know: if you crashed and stopped so fast, you'll likely be more severely injured. That's why you want the car's crumple zone to absorb that energy
I'm a fan of both companies, but in terms of safety here, I'd have to go with the volvo. SIPS shifts the seat to the centre, car crumples so your head doesn't. Though the Tesla is definitely more sturdier, it may not help as much in a crash. Both cars are super safe though compared to some others out there.
This idea that Tesla doesn't crumple is silly, sure in this one test it didn't as much as the volvo. Look at the other tests though. Tesla engineers know something about what they are doing.
A collab between Volvo and Tesla would be great.
I think its good to see how the head swings around in the vehicles.
In the Volvo it doesn't leave the headrest in the tesla hmmm you might have some seriously damage to your neck.
4:35
Exactly! Volvo is just overall the safest car brand.
Tesla has a lot to learn... they are still newbies!
Old Volvo: *is safer than a Brand new tesla*
👍
Funny how ppl dont understand that the volvo is acting just as intended. The numbers provided in this video shows the Tesla driver is way more damaged due to the high G-forces from the crash.
In the small overlap crash test model 3 got the door hinges bushed 8inches back and inwards. The door sill also collapsed. It had moderate risk of of lower feet injury. A 2017 subaru impreza had much less cabin damage in the same test. With barely no damage to the door, door sill and the door hinge area. Subaru does use 60% high strength steel. It may not be the case on those soft tesla chassis.
If the car does not absorb energy, your head will.
Volvo is the safer car
tim ruclips.net/video/bkayYiwrjyQ/видео.html
Lmao the amount of Tesla fanboys tho
Edit: also, the center console is also a crumple zone, which allows the seat to move inward to prevent the driver from being crushed. Overall, I’d say the Volvo is the safer car here
Rafael Carpy ruclips.net/video/bkayYiwrjyQ/видео.html
THAT IS A 2015 VOLVO S60! THE TESLA IS SO MUCH NEWER!
Volvo have almoust 100 years experiene of making safety cars and Tesla have almoust 20 years so who is safer Volvo or Tesla. I Think Volvo.
ICE powered cars are mass produced since more than 100 years.
EVs are almost twice as efficient, especially under low RPM.
Volve may be the saver car right now, according to the forces on your body.
The Cybertruck seems very dangerous for pedestrians.
Tesla is evolving quickly.
The new Headrests made their cars a lot safer for Children and people over 185cm.
Quality Controll will be better when they have to meet European production Standards because of the Berlin Gigafactory.
I think it is very likely for Tesla to even beat Volvo at their Game.
aksk aksk ruclips.net/video/bkayYiwrjyQ/видео.html
@@einfachben0399 No, its not. You are dreaming. Volvo and Polestar is going to kick Teslas ass!
@@Cars-N-Jets Do you have any knowledge in car safety. That Tesla because it dosn't have crumple zones means that the driver takes the forces of the accident. Also the Cybertruck is gonna be one of the unsafest cars on the road.
@@Kermiitti i agree with you if you look at the numbers it proofs volvo is safer and when people say tesla has better safety features they don't realise other car brands have that too😂😂
tl;dr Deformation of the car during a crash dissipates some of the energy of the crash, meaning the passengers experience a less severe environment. By Musk's logic the safest car in a crash is one that doesn't deform at all, basically a solid steel box, which is obviously nonsense
The car can slide you genius. The front of the Tesla is soft. The side is not because you are a few inches away from the side of the car. What food is a soft side of YOU are part of the cushion?
I really hope this finally blows up, so that people learn more about safety and don’t only trust marketing
Daniel Poller ruclips.net/video/oL6sBXxWG7k/видео.html This Video is lying.
I Love Tesla’s I won’t click on the link because your username says a lot about you. You are just a fanboy of Tesla which can’t accept the truth.
@@danielpoller1467 his sources are from tesla fan boys too😂😂
Volvo = safety .
Incredible. Tesla fanboys going nuts in this comment section. It's so obvious that Volvo is superior when it comes to safety. They've been doing it since 1969 and it's the single most important aspect of their car design. Volvo designs the car around safety whilst other manufacturers add safety to everything else a car offers. This is a distinctly different approach. If you've ever been to their crash test facility you would never doubt this again. By the way, I'm not a Tesla hater. I like Tesla's for what they are but claiming that they're safer than Volvo is ludicrous (P90D ludicrous :P).
Tesla fanboys:but Elon said tesla is safer 🤯
The way Tesla cars handle with autopilot Tesla need to be safer as you're way more likely to get into an accident with Tesla
I would drive a VOLVO over Tesla anytime
Thank you for telling the real truth 🙏
@@georgevavoulis4758 i drive volvo self, i drived once tesla from my frend never more,
These are proven EURO NCAP results!
Grayson Alexander ruclips.net/video/bkayYiwrjyQ/видео.html
Tesla get one hell of a wiphlash. Volvo deploys side airbag and absorbs impact. The seat is able to move inside the cabin to make sure the impact doesnt crush the body
Most cars have side airbags.
Maybe volvo should license their seat moving tech to Tesla, be good for everyone.
@No U When it comes to safety tech, just about EVERYONE copies volvo. That's a good thing. You don't think people are copying Tesla's battery tech?
I would applaud Tesla for copying every last bit of Volvo safety tech. Volvo should do the same. Saves lives.
So the volvo deforms because it protects the driver. The Tesla is stiff and protects the car.
Thay can’t take a olf Volvo they should take the XC40
Correct. For the record, Xc40 now has an All electric version with a FRUNk, and Volvo had to add ADDITIONAL structural elements in the front crash structure to be able to offer equal safety compared to the IC xc40.
I drive only Volvos since 40 Years - believe me, I know why...
I want know you opinion, what is betet Volvo for you?
@@ECLEAT Old Volvos have a high quality in ALL parts, better then AudiBmwMercedes & Co. Also they have the best
seats and spareparts are always availible. But since the last 10 or 15 years they are just normal cars like others - sorry.
@@kingearl2596 thanks
I own the Volvo S60. I get better range too!!
G Forces on driver are higher if the body is stiffer , true. Effect on the passenger are - one is squashed dead and the other has a good chance. I prefer my passenger not to BE the crumple zone.
You go on correctly to mention side airbags help the head in these side impact situations.
I can attest personally to this fact, having been hit in the side by a Kenworth semi and then the concrete median barrier on a Melbourne freeway in 2012. The side airbags saved our heads big time.
But I'd rather be squished into a pancake and have a "softer" crash than have a harder hit and be unscathed any day mate
Thing is the Volvo kinda does both. First, all the space between pole and driver is used to absorb energy. Simultaneously, as the side airbags catch the driver and slowly accelerate them sideways whilst the SIPS maintains a survival space and moves the seat into the center console, deforming it (if needed). And the passenger benefit from the extra crumple zone space for a less harsh crash.
And the fact that is a 2010 Volvo outperforming an advanced 2017 car with a margin to spare really shows how far ahead Volvo is
I rather take the smash to the head than having a chance of cutting my body in half, not gonna lie
I am driving a 2012 Volvo XC70 wagon. The best car from the 2012 Volvo lineup.
I like Volvos and I am a dieHard wagon fan. I have driven all Tesla Models and I would exchange my Volvo for any used Tesla in a heartbeat. I look forward for electric Volvos, for sure they are coming. You can order the your EV Polestar already. I would still go with Tesla.
But it was previous generation of s60!!
how often do you slide into a pole
Fascinating. Thank you.
Peter Reid this Video lied
@@Cars-N-Jets numbers don't lie tesla fan boys that are your source do😂
Tesla fans!!! Not the speed kills you! The sudden deceleration will broke your neck! Crumple zones are vital (see Volvo crash)!!!
Which one prefer: Leg/hip injury (non fatal), or broken neck (fatal)?
TinmanHU ruclips.net/video/bkayYiwrjyQ/видео.html
Tesla Model 3: "...In the more severe side pole impact, dummy readings of rib compression indicated marginal protection of the chest"
Volvo S60 : "...In both the side barrier impact and the more severe side pole test, protection of critical parts of the body was good or adequate"
EURONCAP.
Volvo ❤️❤️❤️❤️
I like Elon and the Tesla, but what Tesla fails to understand in crash safety is a safety cell. The safety cell is meant to safeguard the occupants. Everything outside this safety cell is designed to crumple, reduce g loads and dissipate the energy away from from the occupants. Unfortunately Tesla thinks that the whole car should be a safety cell,with little to no crumple zones. This equates to high g loads and energy being transferred to the occupants, as demonstrated in the crash data. It may look impressive to the untrained eye but is a safety fail.
Most of the NHTSA crash tests are straight out of the 1970s. They do not have the crash test facilities that Volvo has in their safety center in Sweden. The Volvo Safety Center can do crash tests at all angles and with both cars moving at the same time. And Volvo has duplicated 10s of thousands actual real world crashes. Volvo builds their cars to survive real world crashes, and tests much more than just the stilted simplistic crash tests where the crash angles are straight-on, or at 90 degree angles. Does Tesla or the NHTSA know what would happen at a 35 degree side impact crash with both cars moving? NO! Volvo does though. .....
And the Model X got a 5-star rating on the Rollover test, the only SUV to have ever gotten that rating. But that Rollover test is the biggest joke of all. In it, a car is pushed side-ways into a sand pit to see it's tendency to roll. There is NO forward motion, and does not test Electronic Stability Control. ... What a joke! .... In fact the ESC system on the Volvo XC60 have did better than the Model X in the Moose test.
The Volvo XC60 does better in electronic stability control than the Model X.
ruclips.net/video/x_H4zhjLe60/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/Sv9Oo5TMiWw/видео.html
The XC60 passes at 77 kph, and the Model X fails at 72 kph.
777Outrigger ruclips.net/video/bkayYiwrjyQ/видео.html
@@Cars-N-Jets Again the tired old refrain that Tesla's are the safest because of the NHTSA obsolete tests, especially the Rollover test, which is a joke. A car is pushed sideways into a sand pit with no forward motion. It doesn't even test Electronic Stability Control. It seems you didn't read my post, nor did you watch the above video.
777Outrigger ruclips.net/video/oL6sBXxWG7k/видео.html I’m not stupid. I know my stuff. Do real research www.iihs.org/ratings/vehicle/tesla/model-3-4-door-sedan/2020 dude this is a lying video and misleading u. And you believed it. 😂🤣 and I tweeted your BS out on twitter for people to laugh at you. Ya want real facts? Ok well here ya go #Dumdum www.tesla.com/impact-report/2019. www.tesla.com/VehicleSafetyReport. ruclips.net/video/oL6sBXxWG7k/видео.html
@@Cars-N-Jets - Nothing you've posted contradicts the stuff I posted. I wasted my time watching your video. Lots of great anecdotal stuff. There's lots of great anecdotal stuff on Volvo too.
1. Volvo does not build it's cars to pass the simplistic crash tests of the IIHS , the NHTSA, on NCAP. Volvo builds it's cars based it's database of 10s of thousands of actual crashes. Volvo technicians often beat first responders to accidents in Sweden. The crash testing facilities of the IIHS, the NHTSA, and NCAP are inferior to Volvo's. As a Tesla fanboi you should understand the importance of gathering real-world data because you guys always talking about the real-world data Tesla is gathering on self driving makes Tesla's lead on autonomous driving insurmountable. Volvo has decades of gathering data on real world car accidents. 10s of thousands of actual accidents.
2. In 2018, Thatcham Research said that no one had been killed in an XC90 in the UK, and that Volvo had sold just over 50,000 XC90s since 2002.
www.thedrive.com/news/20203/...ash-in-britain
In a 2015, a three year IIHS study of 2011 car Models had the XC90 with 0 fatalities.. The XC90 was the only Volvo to have the requisite millions of years of driving time to be considered in the study. So Volvo was 1 for 1 in the study. The XC90 has only gotten safer since that time.
By the end of 2019 Tesla has sold about 72,000 Model Xs in the US, and 3 people have died in a Model X in the US.
And here's a death count for Tesla's for you.
www.tesladeaths.com/
3. I'll run this by you again for you reading pleasure.
The Volvo XC60 does better in electronic stability control than the Model X.
ruclips.net/video/x_H4zhjLe60/видео.html
ruclips.net/video/Sv9Oo5TMiWw/видео.html
The XC60 passes at 77 kph, and the Model X fails at 72 kph.
4. Women are 71% more like;y to be injured in a car crash and 17% more likely to be killed. Volvo is addressing this problem more than any other car company, and is releasing it's database of 10s of thousands of actual accidents for other car companies to address this problem. Volvo is doing stuff in safety that Tesla hasn't even thought of yet.
ruclips.net/video/0MSiSWl10VM/видео.html
5. Elon made a fool of himself when he compared a Model 3 and an S60 in the Pole Test.. He totally doesn't have a clue about the Volvo SIPS, and how it moves the driver away from the door in a side impact. As this video shows, the dummy in the S60 received less impact than the one in the Model 3.
And Tesla fanbois laughing at me, eh? Oh my, I'm crushed.
777Outrigger Tesla deaths.com is Fake you idiot. TSLAQ idiots on twitter make that shit up that's not true. They have no fucking source, you idiot. This video is fake and is misleading you. You're such an idiot believing in a fake lying video. I'm not as stupid as you and I actually do my research unlike you.
Tesla: Safety is so important to US we make The safest cars. Tesla are best cause of crumple zone.
*makes Cybertruck*
POTATO they’ll make it safe. It’ll have all the other safety features as all the other Tesla’s
I Love Tesla’s IT has no crush zone. All the g forces are going directly on the driver. And if a pedestrian gets hit their skull is easily gonna break
POTATO Same thing would happen with every other truck is someone got hit. It’ll have the same safety systems from the S & 3 which means it will automatically stop if it senses the car is getting too close.
@@Cars-N-Jets tesla isn't teh only car company with that safety feature volvo and polestar have that too and more companies...
Different shapes of the metal that is crashed into.
Model S and model 3 was also beaten by 2015 Subaru wrx in small overlap crash test. Moderate risk of injury to lower leg in tesla. No risk of lower leg injury in the much smaller Subaru wrx.
volvo will always be king and im a jaguar man
That volvo is from years past to tesla, the disadvantage of volvo is the weight of the engine, an electrician does not have it, yet in all other tests it is better volvo
@@tanishatanuja Your silly boy comments don't matter to me, I forgive you for being a kid . Every person shows their education and mine is to ignore you
The engine is in fact a VERY important piece in the puzzle of creating a safe car.
...so less impact, till it crushes you.
Mach Mach the seat has rigid bars built into it that make the seat and therefore the person stay at safe distance from the intrusion, part of SIPS, this has also been a feature since 2004 on Volvo’s...
@@CarThings___ Here's hoping that seat safely exits the car at anything faster because that's one hellava intrusion for only 20mph/32kmh
Mach Mach any faster in the Tesla you’re going to puncture the battery though
@@CarThings___ I know it's a pro Tesla site I linked but the results are strait from NHTSA and NFPA. The newer Euro stats are showing similar results. Basically if it's fire you're worried about you're statistically 8x safer in a Tesla.
Thanks for informing me about the Volvo's cool seat btw, I looked it up for kicks, pretty smart tech. The center console is even designed to make more room if needed.
www.teslarati.com/tesla-model-s3x-are-8x-less-likely-to-catch-fire-q2-2019-safety-report/
@@machmach5006 Dont forget to take in count that: When volvo will be crushed that critically so sips and every crumple zone will be already used and you will die because you will be smashed, in that crash you will die even in tesla, because hit will be that hard, that your internals will be mixed out.
i'd rather hit the airbag than hit my head on the intrusive pole
What do you think is safer: g-forces or cutting body in half?
Also at higher speed the Volvo itself might be cut in half...
What will happen with the battery once the pole penetrates the battery case at higher velocity. My guess is fire, and its not your typical slow burning fire...
@@dsociala No one Model 3 has caught fire to date. It's different battery than Model S or X. I recommend you this video: ruclips.net/video/2IzVC-FGdFw/видео.html
@@pmj_studio4065 I recommend you going back to school. Once more go back to physics .... when volvo will be colapsed that much, that it will crush you, i say over 60 km/h. That in that case, in tesla, your internals will be mixed out from extreme overload, because battery will still holds rigidity and impact will be deadly, + there is still chance of fire. I still dont understand how people can be so stupid, buy a tank and crash it in 50km/h to the steel wall. You will be probably dead ...
@@BugThorn under certain speed in Tesla you would be uninjured thanks to the rigidity. Above that speed, you could die from overload.
Meanwhile in Volvo you could be crushed at almost every speed, just more or less seriously (this test was ~50 km/h, right?).
In Tesla you would be slowed down by airbags.
In Volvo you might end up on the object you hit.
It depends on speed and still on what's safer - overload or injuries.
*and remember - Tesla is 5 times less likely to catch a fire*
@Paweł Buczyński In Russia, a Model 3 exploded after a car crash, because the battery was penetrated. And the occupants had luck, that they get out of the Model 3, because firefighters can't save people, when they get stuck. They have to let the car to burn out even with the people in it for their own safety unfortunately.
VOLVO is better safer and cooler also that Volvo is probably a 2012
Of course its not, its tesla, and Volvo is Volvo :)
Rokas ruclips.net/video/bkayYiwrjyQ/видео.html
@@Cars-N-Jets ruclips.net/video/-RQ2BYzoWY8/видео.html
Rokas ruclips.net/video/il2jmMRgFV8/видео.html ruclips.net/video/UJTY7ilwSq4/видео.html
He compared 2015 s60 to new tesla he needed to compare new volvo to new tesla
Makes you wonder if Musk is a con artist.
COME THROUGH WITH THE RECEIPTS 🔥🔥🤣🤣🤣
There is a reason Tesla showed a crash test of an very old volvo. The volvo they showed existed when tesla didnt exist...
İ think that Volvo is old
yes it's an older Volvo
@@onyxfox.09 it's a 2016 s60, the tesla is a 2016 model 3 prototype
Henode Official good to know, I didn’t put that much time researching
@@SKYZO4 actually this s60 is from 2010, yes built in 2016, but construction is from 2010. So yes, it is old
For adult occupant euro cap scores both cars 96%. Child occupant 86% tesla, 84% volvo. Vulnerable road users (pedestrians) both cars score 74%. Safety assist 76% volvo, 94% tesla. That's euro ncap info. So picking one specific (and perhaps unusual) test case to make the claims in video here is disengenious. Just click bait really.
Correct me if I'm wrong but, Tesla looks like it's a 2018 and the Volvo is 2016?
I don't know @ 4:11 it looks like it says 2016 or 2018 (the Tesla)
Actually this model of S60 is from 2010
Mildas oh, I did not know that
I think it is a 2016 Volvo. Definitely not a 2010
@@jonhettrick7969 Same car... It came out in 2010
The model 3 was presented in 2016, and the sticker on top of the volvo in the crash test said 2016
The first that makes model 3 safer is ir is electric
Electric?what does that have to do with safety
@@article8452no engine block at the front and lower center of gravity due to the batteries being on the floor of the car
What about front crash where Volvo has big block of aluminium instead of crumple zone?)
Engine is a really good crumple zone at small/medium impact, and if the crash is very hard it brokens off. In tesla there empty space and in hard frontal crashes the crashing object just passes through the "frunk" and directly hits interior of the car.
Zero Intrusion.
LEAST Occupant deaths.
Look it up.
Volvo independently investigates all crashes in Sweden that involve a Volvo to learn and improve their cars.
FYI:
See what they are doing for the Xc40 All electric version with a FRUNK.
Volvo had to add ADDITIONAL structural elements in the front crash structure to be able to offer equal safety compared to the IC xc40.
Rokas ruclips.net/video/bkayYiwrjyQ/видео.html
the floor plan of the Tesla is certianly stronger than that of the volvo ... but how about the glass roof ? yes cars occasionally wrap around the tree but other types of accidents are more common. personally i would rather have a strong roof than a strong floor in a car. all this really proves is that presentations like the one Elon gave are inherently misleading. always get both sides of every story before making up your mind.
Go research the glass roof. It’s one of the reasons why the Tesla has higher safety. Look how much weight the roof can take compared to rival cars.
@@koruki i know i know - super strong tesla glass - as demonstrated by Elon himself during CyberTruck reveal. well, if the roof doesn't fall off first as they occasionally do in Teslas.
@@g1981c lol if all you do is take a prototype event as the source instead of euro NCAP tests on production cars then I have nothing to say.
@@koruki good.
Tesla uses the battery to stop the pole from intruding. It is remarkable how little intrusion there is- I saw a post pole test Model 3 and it looked like a small dent compared to the many other pole tests I have seen. Of course that means less energy absorbed by the car, but it would have been useful to compare HIC not just accelerations.
Let's put this to a test why won't you ride on a Volvo and have your wife ride on the Tesla and do a side collision test then I would truly believe your research 🙈 come back with the video summary 👍.
Volvo already done that. Over 40.000 real world accidents with almost 80.000 occupants. Yes, it's true. They have investigated over 40.000!!! real world accidents during the past 50 years! Why? To understand what happens in a real world crash. They also check medical journals, x-ray images and so on from people who might have been hurt. So, Volvo KNOW what counts. Tesla... has no idea... They even failed with a 'simple' thing as a seat belt in model S. Twice! Then they said the test was faulty....
It IS safer.
Volvo
Volvo is more better in this case
Elon was showing his profound ignorance of the Volvo SIPS system, which moves the seat away from the door and crushes the center console. You can see the S60 seat moving away from the impact at 4:50, and the Model 3 seat staying firmly in place. More intrusion by the pole, but less impact on the passenger because of less acceleration and movement away from the door. Sorry, Elon, Tesla is not safer.
777Outrigger ruclips.net/video/bkayYiwrjyQ/видео.html
@@Cars-N-Jets - Why the Volvo is safer in side impact than Teslas. ruclips.net/video/wA09vM7Zufs/видео.html
american shitbox or some swedish brick? i’d prefer the swedish brick.
These Tesla people including the people who buy them including the people who make them they are so snobby and rude and arrogant and think that they’re the best thing in the world. It’s really disrespectful because Volvo invented safety for vehicles they were the first car company to invent whips and seatbelts. As well as child booster seats how can you just smirk and try to take that from that when they invented it it’s disrespectful I hate Tesla drivers, the cars everything about them.
Yeah, so all the test facilities are wrong, in giving the Tesla the better rating. As they are the people who measure the data and evaluate them, I guess you know it better than these guys do?
Volvo S90 vs Tesla Model S - CRASH test 2017 / CARWORLD
ruclips.net/video/aL_WlxxnSXU/видео.html
Volvo: Makes speedlimit on their car for safety reasons.
Tesla: rOaDsTeR hErE wE gO
You take an old car to compare with a new car ? Just like-Which bone is harder between the young and the old?
Both are from 2016
Less Gs on your body but you are a pole so does it matter. I was crushed by a pole but it was a gentle CRUSHING!
Another fake claim.
Crash test of 2020 s60: ruclips.net/video/oujPHRQmlXc/видео.html
Yeah sure😂😂😂
Though logical when you pick the g force numbers it doesn’t really add up on side impact when the crumple zone is the driver seat. Yes less G’s because it’s soft but you don’t want to be crushed like you see in the video. The airbags in both cars will reduce the g’s on the body. You cant just pick G force numbers like it was a front impact where the area of the car that’s crushed is the engine bay instead of the human.
Oh look I got some bad whiplash instead of being crushed and trapped in a car.
That and not to mention every safety testing organisation in different continents have confirmed Tesla’s safety ratings.
Wenn i can use ohne Car for a Crush i take the Tesla
Hallo Deutschland, was gibt
This is stupid realy who is the best, lol YOu buye the car you like and feel safe in. Its like winter tiers with or without taps you selecct the one you feel safest with as you are gonna focus on driving when you drive a car not that if my car or tiers are bether you use the one you feel safest in, and then if the one have a small nr bether then the other it dosent meet its safer- The tesla have much more anti crash software and hardware then the Volvo so the volvo wil crash more anyway and the Tesla will avoid more crashes then the volvo so then the Tesla is the safest car anyway.
The Volvo doesn't have a chunky ass battery taking the brunt of the hit, so maybe Volvo should make EV models instead?
TESLA is a CRAP
Old video Old Information... Tesla has Smart brain. So Safer than Foolish Volvo
Feik
Lalancı....
Well in this specific test that may be true, however in most other tests, Tesla outperforms Volvo. Not to forget Tesla’s autopilot, which if you look up on RUclips, has prevented many crashes.
thats not an active safety test. look at all euro ncaps and iihs. volvo far outperforms
well that was the test for the model s on iihs but they realeased the model 3 tests which outperforms volvo in some test
But lets just say that i like both brands for safety
@@AriensRotokiller they both got same rating, but look at injury measurements. equivalent volvos did a lot better and model 3's bottom frame is peeled off. What do you mean that model 3 outperformed????????????
@@느낌표-t1l lul we keep arguing i like both brands
@@느낌표-t1l they are both gud
Tesla safer than Volvo
+5-10 mph more, volvo destroit people in car
yeah a Yank made Volvo might be just ok but who would feel safe inside a Chinese or even Indian made one??
Private the Chinese made Volvo’s are only sold in China
Volvo don't make their cars in India, although they do assemble some of their cars in China.
This video is horseshit lol. There is no way surviving in Volvo in a crash like this. In Tesla you may have a chance.
You must be really not smart or know $hit about physics. You have much bigger chances of surviving in Volvo (as said in the video). Because in normal crashes (not 100mph< ones) people are dying only because of high g forces and not deformation. Of course volvo could have made a car same rigid as tesla did, but it would be unsafe. And if the impact is at higher speed, Volvo's crumple zone "ends" and it becomes rigid. So tesla < Volvo :)