edit: I'm not saying I agree with GP, just explaining what I think they meant by stating that they were "cheating."
Doesn't this just say that NHSTA is ignoring other areas where things could go wrong?
You're not being very charitable here; you're assuming the parent has bad faith. Why can't we just be a bunch of people having fun together on the internet?
A good faith argument could be made to discuss how the crash tests like any sort of benchmarking are likely to lead to optimization for the tests - you get more of what you can measure - so one needs to be careful that the results are broadly applicable. This of course would apply to all makers, not just Tesla. But that is not the argument the parent made.
Still, I prefer to follow Hanlon's razor, and not assume malice. This kind of mistake always seem obvious in hindsight, but if it was, why was there no one warning about it at the time?
It seems more likely that crash tests represent our best understanding of common crashes in the real world, in order to build vehicles that protect their occupants best.
(/sarcasm)
From the nhsta site (https://www.nhtsa.gov/sites/nhtsa.dot.gov/files/documents/12...)
Observations on various aspects:
* "Because the lower the flash point, the more hazardous the fire risk, flammable electrolyte solvents in Li-ion batteries are more or less as hazardous as conventional vehicular fuels."
* "Because the narrower the flammability range, the less hazardous the fire risk, flammable electrolytic solvents in Li-ion batteries are about as hazardous as conventional vehicular fuels, and certainly less hazardous than hydrogen."
* "Because the lower the minimum ignition temperature, the more hazardous the fire risk, flammable electrolytic solvents are not as hazardous as conventional vehicular fuels."
* "Because the lower the minimum spark energy, the more hazardous the fire risk, flammable electrolytic solvents are probably about as hazardous as conventional vehicular fuels."
* "Because the lower the maximum flame temperature the lower the exposure risk (skin burns) to fire, electrolytic solvents are expected to pose no more of a severe risk to burn injuries than conventional vehicular fuels, gasoline and diesel."
* "Because of the probable similarity in the magnitude of the maximum flame temperatures, if the combustion of the electrolytic solvents were confined, the resulting overpressure that could build up would maximize at about the same levels as for the other flammable fuels, meaning that the burst damage that would result from Li-ion explosions would also be comparable to that from conventional vehicular fuels."
* "The thermal energy expected to be released upon initiation and combustion of the electrolytic solvents would be less than that of gasoline and diesel fuel."
You assume there are such crash tests, but don't describe any specific ones. I am guessing that is because none exist, but perhaps I am mistaken.
When NHTSA checked that the most fatal (but less common) crashes where off center, they started testing that way and all grades crashed (pun intended). and all makers had a hard time to improve because engine and engine bay designs made it very difficult, but that was the goal of the new test: go for the high hanging fruit for those car designs.
the tesla battery chassis doesn't have the engine, so it is easier to make changes that will beef up their car in the very same way other makers did for full fontral collision before. basically they are " cheating" the same way makers "cheated" on the full fontral collision test before.
it is very likely that other kind of crash tests, that are not even tested by anybody because internal combustion engine cars always did so well on those, are extremely fatal on teslas. but we will never know because nhsta just put teslas in the same test battery as any other car. we lack the 50+ year of continuous self improvement cycle the crash tests had with other designs so far.