.svg)
Tesla Model S Fails Vague Auto Brake Test, Smashes Into Dummy Car
5 H BY STEVEN LOVEDAY 53
A European automotive testing authority reports that the Tesla Model S failed to stop in its braking simulation.
According to the Luxembourg testing and standardization authority (ILNAS) – as reported by Luxembourg Wort – the Model S was unable to stop for a dummy car while traveling only 30 km/h (~19 mph). The agency released photos of the testing, but reportedly did not forward details of the test to Tesla. Additionally, the situation surrounding the test was surely vague and interesting.
Related Articles
Interestingly, this test was performed using a 2015 Tesla Model S with first-gen Autopilot hardware. Surely the model year of the car doesn’t explain why the test results were negative, but it’s an important detail to divulge. This is especially true since it’s a used car and the 2016 and 2017 Model S both received the top rating of ‘Superior’ for front crash prevention from the U.S.-based Insurance Institute for Highway Safety (IIHS).
The tests were performed in front of the media and also included a 2018 Volvo S90. An old used Tesla versus a brand new Volvo? This is an uneven situation to invite the media to report on. While the Tesla didn’t stop for the dummy car at the slow speed, the S90 stopped at 60 km/h (~37 mph).
Electrek reached out to Tesla for comment. The automaker explained that ILNAS hasn’t disclosed the testing details. So, Tesla can’t move forward in confirming whether or not the results are justified. A spokesperson shared (via Electrek):
ILNAS has refused to share the details of the test with us, including the test protocol, and therefore we’ve been unable to confirm that the test is valid or accurate. While we were not consulted by ILNAS in advance and only learned about the test through the media, we have obtained the vehicle identification number of the test car used and see it was built in 2015 and is registered as a rental car in Germany. We will continue to investigate to understand how the test was conducted and if it was done properly.
In related news, the Tesla Model 3 was recently tested by the IIHS as well. It also earned a Superior rating for front crash prevention. The sedan stopped successfully for the low-speed test (12 mph) and the high-speed test (25 mph).
Source: Electrek
Categories: Crashed EVs, Tesla
Popular
Leave a Reply
53 Comments on "Tesla Model S Fails Vague Auto Brake Test, Smashes Into Dummy Car"
Tesla SHORT Stock Sale Still going On: Currently at 312. The 200 day moving average is 322. And this should reset higher during Q3 and Q4 if Tesla does report profitability. If course, you have to keep in mind the Chanos Smear campaign may effect the future price. The only way Chanos seems to know how to make money these days is with a smear campaign, and Wall Street media is more than wiling to take the money and run.
Chanos is going to “lose his shorts”, when Musk gets back from China later this week.
I hope Jim is “All In”, so to speak!
A Short squeeze is coming soon, and it may be all the way to the Moon!
This supposed brake test, will become known in the US, as the Tesla Euro scandal #Brakezeigt!
Have they released the protocols, for the test? 2105 versus a 2018 car??
What “protocols?”. Look at the photos. It’s the world’s simplest test. The Volvo passed and the Tesla didn’t. Open and shut, but Tesla’s PR department is writhing on the ground trying to draw a yellow card.
“Tesla’s PR department is writhing on the ground trying to draw a yellow card.”
And pulling a Neymar. Lol
“World’s simplest test.” A perfectly flat sheet of foam will barely register on radar (which a 2015 Tesla uses), but will show up on an optical system (which a 2018 Volvo uses). This test is custom designed for one to pass and the other to fail. Also, a 2015 Tesla had AP1, which uses MobileEye technology. I’d like to see this done with an AP2 Tesla, and with a target that has a proper radar signature similar to an actual car, before I’d call this “Open and Shut.”
Also, holding it in front of a press corps, and not sharing the specifics with Tesla first or after? Stinks like a pile of manure. Consumer Reports found a flaw with Model 3 braking, shared their findings with Tesla, and reran the test after Tesla came up with a fix in days. This is a hit piece, much like every word you type 7E
This Tesla uses MobileEye, just like the Volvo. Both also have radar. Apples to apples.
Fresh off the tree apples vs sitting on the ground for 3 years apples , at best. Even if Volvo uses MobileEye (I’ll take your word for it), and even if it is pure radar and no optical (I honestly don’t know), we’re still talking about a system that ceased development three years ago vs a system that’s had three more years of development cycle, both hardware and software.
why not compare 2018 to 2019 OR 2015 to 2015?
And lets see what happens when that volvo is going 100 miles an hour and a bag blows in front of it.
This was a test done by Volvo in 2015, I’m sure many people remember this one.
Volvo auto brake system fail
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_47utWAoupo
Photos tell nothing. There is a reason why auto brake tests are standardized. Radar based systems (which Tesla’s was) will not brake for items that do not reflect radar. There are also plenty of invalid tests done on Youtube, and they were also called out.
The standard test targets have reflectors inside which simulates a vehicle’s radar signature. They also make it so the back looks like a vehicle (for visual based systems). Without knowing the details of the test target it’s hard to say if the system did anything wrong.
I wonder if the autopilot would stop for a plate glass window in the middle of a road. I also wonder if it would stop for a wall of bubble wrap. I bet it detects a 6-inch curb without issues!
“I’m sorry Mrs. Smith, but your daughter was killed because she wasn’t wearing clothing with radar reflectors inside them. Next time, make sure she goes out wearing a t-shirt that looks like the back of a car.”
LOL – your Tesla cultists.
LOL. what frequencies were the radar’s at?
And how come no metal or plastic on the foam item?
And why compare 2015 tesla to 2018 volvo, with the press there?
Gut feeling says that tesla used a frequency that pass through foam.
So far as I know, all frequencies of radar pass right through foam, which is mostly air.
If Chris Stork is correct about the Volvo using an optically-based ABS, then that would explain the difference. Most ABS systems, including Tesla’s ABS, use Doppler radar for their sensors.
Note how the serial Tesla bashers are arguing as if the actual facts of the case are irrelevant. It sure would be nice if they were banned from our discussions. Imagine how much more interesting and meaningful discussion there would be if they were gone!
In my opinion, this is biased journalism. You should not call it sketchy, if you know nothing about it. To english readers, the original article quotes the authority will do more tests with newer AP as well. But no matter what the circumstance, the car should have been able to brake. Even if the car is 3years old. Using your argument VW could have asked the same regarding emission tests “why do they test a 3years old car, how unfair, this is sketchy”. They need to have a look at the data why it failed and if there is a bigger issue with Teslas. We all know, they have trouble detecting stationary objects and there have been many incidents of Teslas not breaking prior to collision.
Reworded
It seems like there are a lot of reasons to believe this test was sketchy.
What are those reasons?
They probably painted the test car fire truck red, how unfair!
Still, I’ll hold off judgement until I know more about this test. Still you are right, just because Tesla failed a test doesn’t mean the test was biased.
Volvo retaliation since during the 3 reveal Musk called out Volvo?
I wonder if subsequent OTA updates messed something up with AEB in older Teslas due to lack of thorough in-house testing before release.
In-house testing is redundant. “Fleet testing” is the new way forward. AP has only killed three so far.
Autopilot hasn’t killed anyone… it was the irresponsible owners not using the Advanced Driver Assistance Feature properly.
Tesla makes it very clear that this isn’t a self-driving system. VERY CLEAR.
So if owners want to take their life into their hand (by not being on the wheel and watching Harry Potter, or not being extra diligent at a section of highway that you have had repeated issues with autopilot performing at), then it’s darwinism at its finest.
“AP has only killed three so far.”
FUD rating: 10
You mean, AP has only failed to save three so far.
We can only imagine how many lives AP+AutoSteer is saving every week!
Construction of the dummy obstacle is the more likely culprit here. Low density foam is not a great testing medium for a radar based system calibrated for objects composed of metal or flesh.
There is a metal sheet in these dummys. They mimic video, radar and lidar signature.
Yes that is normally the case, but we simply don’t know if this one did. That’s why people are complaining about this test, because there are few details given.
If they had released written test procedures we could confim exactly what was used. Since they refuse to release that info there is literally no way to know.
where is this documented?
Seems to me that the dummy car is off to one side in the Tesla test, but centred for the Volvo … biased? Yes.
This annoys me with the ACC in my current cars, if the car is driving far to one side of the lane sometimes it follows too closely so I find myself also going to one side to get the car to react appropriately.
Sounds like more inflatable car nonsense. RADAR GOES THROUGH CLOTH, IDIOTS.
There is a big metal sheet in that dummy to mimic the radar signature of cars. Dont publish bs if you have no idea of automotive tests. You can even hear that metal sheet getting hit in the original video.
These dummys are hightech to be compatible to video, lidar and radar, it isnt just simple foam and cloth as some of you might think.
1. The test (as above if you would READ it) gave no such details.
2. The previous test, of which there was a video, clearly showed it was CLOTH ONLY because the Tesla ran through it. There was no metal anything.
3. You don’t know what the test consisted of EITHER, so you have no standing to announce a “BS” post. Check your ego at the door.
If you are so certain show us the docs describing the construction of the target.
My Model 3’s system prevented a potential crash last week. I was driving 55mph and took my eyes off the road to look at some construction to the left of me. I heard a loud beeping and looked back to the road to find the truck in front of me had locked up his brakes because of an issue with the car in front of him. The beeping allowed me to hit my brakes in time. I don’t know what would have happened otherwise. I only looked away for a couple seconds for all of this to happen.
If you’re driving over 29mph, AEB only slows you by 25 mph before releasing the brakes. This assumes it sees the car (which it looks like it did in your case) and you don’t react in anyway such as hitting the brakes or steering. Source: Model 3 owner’s manual.
I’m guessing it doesn’t completely stop you because it doesn’t want to get rear-ended and the thinking is the hard braking should give the driver enough time to react and either steer or brake on their own.
Any “test” that lacks written protocols that are repeatable and confirmable by everyone who follows the same written test protocol isn’t a test. It is a stunt.
Here are what real tests look like, where every single detail of every test is fully documented, such that anybody could run the same test:
http://www.iihs.org/iihs/ratings/technical-information/technical-protocols
Agree… The NCAP testing (which the 2018 Nissan Leaf did well on) is much more controlled and structured and used many different scenarios.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=160&v=CVeSCjgACiA
Safety equipment should not only work in a specific test scenario.
Invalid tests are meaningless at predicting any real world situations. Passing or not passing an invalid test is meaningless.
They have failed to provide the doc required to show whether their test is valid or not. That is their burden
“Safety equipment should not only work in a specific test scenario.”
Please give us a list of all the safety equipment which will function in every possible case.
That’s going to be a very short list. 😉
So, the Volvo came to the stop in the middle of an Interstate for a piece of cardboard? But the Tesla didn’t?
Not quite sure if it Tesla with the problem.
Right. So, Tesla cars won’t stop for a dummy made of styrofoam and cardboard. The question is if they should stop for such very low-mass obstacles.
Luxembourg is where I live, here what they write about ILNAS:
“The Institut Luxembourgeois de la Normalisation, de l’Accréditation, de la Sécurité et qualité des produits et services (ILNAS) is a public service under the authority of the Minister in charge of the Economy”.
As it is a public service belonging to a small state with no car industry I doubt it is manipulated by the infamous “shorts” or by anything else. Now it is totally possible (if not likely) that the test protocol is screwed up, as I wrote above Luxembourg is a very small state and many public services have a bit of DIY approach to problems due to very small scale of the issues they have to solve.
Wait…
Are you saying this isn’t even an organization that normally does automotive testing? That it is under the “Minister in charge of the Economy” instead?
That doesn’t make any sense. There must be something missing here. I thought the EU had harmonised automotive regulations under the EU, not individual nations?
Don’t be a child. That is exactly the problem with tests that don’t provide the same sensor feedback as an actual child. The test results won’t accurately predict actual results if there actually was a child in the road.
Foam tests only predict the fate of other poor foam sheets left in the middle of the road.
Are you and your children made of foam?
This was meant as a response to a post above.
But to be clear, at this point the only children who are at risk based on this test are children made of foam, not any actual real children.
If your children are made of foam, be Concerned. Very Concerned. You should not let your foam children play in the street.
Very likely a hatchet job. They compared a 2015 tesla to a 2018 volvo.
What frequency are the 2 cars using for radar? It would not surprise me if Tesla’s freq does not see the foam.
If they put some metal/plastic behind the foam and then test, I would be interested to see what happens.
But offhand, this looks a lot like Europe pulling a hatchet job to help out Volvo.
Another thing that is interesting is that Tesla did not stop for something that radar passes through, like a floating garbage bag.
What happens at 100 mph with a number of cars behind a volvo and a garbage bag or even balloon is floated outwards?
I suspect that volvo will be responsible for a number of accidents and/or deaths.