Tesla Roadster gets out of air bag requirement for green behavior

Apparently when you're saving the planet with an all-electric car, there's no need to kill yourself over safety. The Tesla Roadster has been granted a waiver in regards to advanced air bags by the NHTSA, since the "public interest is served by encouraging the development of fuel-efficient and alternative-fueled vehicles." Standard air bags are still included, and Tesla apparently tried to comply with the advanced requirement, but told the NHTSA that it's in the hole financially, and would have to cancel the planned sedan and "ultimately have to terminate its operations" if forced to go through with the fancy air bags. All 2008 Roadsters have been pre-sold, and Tesla is supposed to start delivering the cars in Q1 2008.

[Superprime @ Jan 29th 2008 8:29AM]

So it doesn't have the extra curtain airbags? Big whoop

[MarkZ @ Jan 29th 2008 8:34AM]

I don't know why, but I like Tesla. It just seems like a stand-up company.

[broli @ Jan 29th 2008 8:35AM]

Stop surpressing technology and bring out that air car already. Seriously this is really an insult to what we're really capable of making. Why did it had to be an espensive roadster why not a sedan to begin with and why fall 2009...why not tommorow. Like I said supressing technology and we sheep believe their excuses.

[Grizz @ Jan 29th 2008 9:58AM]

You throw around "Air Car" like it just sucked in air and drove around. Air cars range stink compared to electric, because you need a huge heavy compressed air tank/s.

This is not some auto company conspiracy, its just fact, otherwise some bankrupt auto manufacturer would have done it by now to get out of the hole.

[OnlyShawn @ Jan 29th 2008 10:49AM]

nono...it's a car MADE of air....we all look like wonder woman in her invisible jet. ...err...except...not with the outfit....

[macona @ Jan 29th 2008 4:23PM]

Compressed air is one of the least efficient ways to store energy possible. When you compress air it heats up. Wastes energy there. Compressors efficiency goes down as pressure goes up. All factors to make it useless.

[OnlyShawn @ Jan 29th 2008 8:37AM]

...remember this, the next time someone complains that the market is being greedy when it balks on extra safety regulations (or any kind of regulation) by the government. Profits are usually a *much* lower percentage than you'd think, and anything that adds cost cuts into them, often fatally.

If people are worried enough about this or that (safety or other) feature, they'll purchase a car that has that feature: if they're not, why force them to?

[BigD145 @ Jan 29th 2008 2:09PM]

Roadster doesn't make the advanced airbags themselves. Someone else does that job. Someone that happens to be greasing palms on capital hill and/or charging $10,000 for a screw.

[umm....hello??? @ Jan 29th 2008 4:19PM]

right...because the car is only being sold for $100,000 each, and the type of person that can afford a car like that isn't too likely to have a few extra grand to spare on more advanced airbags....uh-huh. it's called "package options" people....upgrade to some factory installed premium 18" rims, leather steering wheel, 20-way electric heated seats, traction control and included premium airbags for only $80,000 more!!!!!

[Deadn Happy @ Jan 29th 2008 8:38AM]

Let me get this straight - by being green it's okay to be dead?

[ajc @ Jan 29th 2008 8:54AM]

Honestly. My vehicle will do more than 150 mph and has no airbags.

And half as many wheels: CBR600RR.

Stop being such a nancy boy and stay in your Volvo.

[Shiftlock @ Jan 29th 2008 8:56AM]

Nobody said anything about being dead. There's a VERY slight chance that the lack of advanced airbags (versus the normal airbags the car WILL have) will cause someone to be harmed in an accident, but requiring them would do such harm to the company that it's not worth forcing the issue, since it could mean the destruction of a company that could do a lot of good. Basically, being green means it's okay to be a very little less safe.

[John @ Jan 29th 2008 8:59AM]

No; decomposition is HORRIBLE for the environment.

[bob @ Jan 29th 2008 9:17AM]

It ain't easy being green.

[Grey Acumen @ Jan 29th 2008 12:06PM]

Oh come on, this is a green car. You'll never be able to go fast enough in it to need airbags :P

[Mobius_1 @ Jan 29th 2008 8:44AM]

I think fuel-guzzling cars should have no safety equipment whatsoever if they really want the world to be green :)

[Alexander @ Jan 29th 2008 1:24PM]

I have been saying for YEARS that we should remove all the saftey things from cars... Unless you've paid up on your insurance.

That'll learn those damn uninsured drivers.

[Adam Zey @ Jan 29th 2008 3:35PM]

Or you could just adopt no-fault insurance like we have in Quebec...

With no-fault insurance, you only ever deal with your own insurance company, so you could care less if the other person is insured. Except car insurance is also mandatory in Quebec, so we don't even have to worry about not having to care.

[Chris @ Jan 29th 2008 9:03AM]

Typical "big green" lobyists getting special treatment.

[jake @ Jan 30th 2008 4:36AM]

Typical bad reporting here; it's not special treatment as ferrari, bugatti, lotus, (and notice none of them are green) pretty much all the low volume sellers get this exemption so why shouldn't Tesla? It costs too much for a low volume seller to include these airbags.

[Dr.Awesome @ Jan 29th 2008 9:22AM]

I hope that if one of the previous posters ever has to scoop the pieces of what's left of a friend or loved one out of one of these new 'green' vehicles, they remember what they posted on this blog.

It's a fact that the increase in CAFE standards over the passed 25 years and led to THOUSANDS of additional traffic deaths in collisions, due to cars being lighter and more fragile. Just to make that point crystal clear: The Insurance Institute of Highway Safety, in its most recent data, shows a correlation of 250-500 fatalities per year per MPG increase every year CAFE standards have been law.

[chris @ Jan 29th 2008 10:48AM]

False. An increase in traffic deaths are a result of bad traffic planning policy combined with more vehicles. The simple fact is that the United States has more highways than slower roads, and more users of those highways. Combine this with an increase in GVWs and the sales of light trucks as opposed to smaller vehicles, and there's your answer. I'm not a fan of CAFE, but I'm quite bored of this fallacy being perpetuated. It's common sense as well as scientific fact that more vehicles, specifically larger, more powerful ones increases hazards in a system designed for a certain level of traffic.

[jntaylor @ Jan 29th 2008 10:43AM]

Dr.Awesome,

Do these numbers also show the increase of SUVS in the market and sharing the road with smaller cars as well? Ever see a Chevy Suburban hit a Geo Metro?

SUVS are causing the increase in accident related car deaths in this time frame. The auto industry created the myth that you would be safer in these roomy, tank like cars. In some cases, yes you could be safer in a SUV vs. sedan/compact. Not so much in SUV vs SUV. Also, SUVS are prone to roll overs that can lead to more accidents as well.

[Dr.Awesome @ Jan 29th 2008 11:09AM]

Both you guys just refuted documented, actual statistics with prototypical paranoid hippy myth. Face it, SUVs are not the cause of all the worlds problems. I know when you guys get together with your tie dyed shirts and Patchouli stank hair, all the worlds problems involve either SUVs, Haliburton or Bush, but let me clue you into a slice of reality: There will always be inefficient gas gulling vehicles, because lots of people can afford to pay for them and to fuel them. I know that doesn't sit too well with you and the rest of your stoner buddies who like to delude themselves into thinking they'll 'raise social consciousness' and change the world or something, but trust me, the world is indifferent to everything you hold as an ideal and despite whatever crap politicians feed you about 'change' nothing ever will, because people are still people and many of them have enough money to do whatever they want anyway.

Wash your hair, get a job and look into growing up a bit.

[Andrew @ Jan 29th 2008 11:34AM]

"You're a dirty unemployed dope-smoking hippy!"

Can't argue with that logic...

O_o

[Anthony @ Jan 29th 2008 12:10PM]

Good come back Dr. Awesome.
Throwing insults and stereo types instead of using logic to refute their arguments.
While were throwing insults and stereotypes, why dont you get back in your Hummer and drive home
to worship at your George W Bush shrine, while listening to some Rush Llimbaugh. Then go work on your plan to
Bomb Iran, destabilize the middle east and help start WW3.
BTW...Im not left wing, nor do I have patchouli dreads or tidi shirts. I just think your obnoxious and closed minded.

More power to Tesla, I hope their technology helps make green vehicles for all kinds of needs (whether those needs be economy car, sports car enthusiasts, or people like farmers who ACTUALLY NEED a big truck for their livelyhood)

[John @ Jan 29th 2008 12:43PM]

Dr. Awesome, since you basically copy-pasted your argument from Wikipedia statistics, allow me to counteract your claims with the sentence that's right after your crash statistics.

"Proponents of higher CAFE standards argue that it is the "Footprint" model of CAFE for trucks that encourages production of larger trucks increasing weight disparities and point out that some small cars (Mini Cooper, Toyota Matrix) are four times safer than some SUVs (Chevy Blazer 2dr), arguing that it is the quality of the engineering design that matters most, not the mass of the vehicle."

So there. Solve the problem of piss-poor American engineering skills, and maybe we'll have less crashes. Also, I should note that there's also a correlation between the obesity rate in the United States and the number of car crashes, so maybe it's obesity that's causing more car crashes!

Correlation does not necessarily mean causation.

[talkingtowalls @ Jan 29th 2008 1:20PM]

but wouldn't that possibly be due to a correlation of the increase of heavier vehicles? it's an arms race out there. that, combined with more vehicles on the road, so of course the stats will go up.

me thinks that it's the hummers/navigators, etc, that are to blame, as they roll over everything or take up more than their share of the lane. including the people who can't drive such large cars but do so anyway. i have a big-a$$ van because of my band, so i know how hard it is to drive a big car/truck/small zip code. and i'm 6'2". it's a learning curve. but there are plenty of soccer moms (and men too, i've seen it) who aren't able to drive those monsters but do so anyway because it's a society thing.

we have a new game on tour - flip off the hummer drivers!

[talkingtowalls @ Jan 29th 2008 1:27PM]

"Correlation does not necessarily mean causation."

thank you!!!

people like you give the rest of us (americans) a bad name. we use more than is our share.

and despite having seen phish a few times in concert, i'm no hippy idealist that so many people like to characterize groups who show concern or regard for others. I'm a punk rocker who can kick your ass! so throw that into the soup of your generalizations.

[John @ Jan 29th 2008 8:33PM]

"Both you guys just refuted documented, actual statistics with prototypical paranoid hippy myth."

*snort

Haha.

Like, as in the alpha testing stage?

And as for the personal comments, please refrain. I'm sure most of the people here on Engadget are not the pothead stoners you perceive them to be.

[Dr.Awesome @ Jan 29th 2008 11:05PM]

How does one anger hippies, liberals, environmental crackpots or 'have nots' in general? Introduce them to reality. Not the made up reality they live in, where their beliefs and ideals actually count for anything or have meaning. But the real one, where their ideas perpetuate their standing toward the bottom of the social order. "Man, to hell with society, I reject institutionalized greed!"

That's great, good for you! Now bag my groceries so I can go home and enjoy my much higher standard of living.

Talkingtowalls:
Have fun touring man, when that inevitably falls apart make sure you update your resume, should help you get a job doing whatever it is grease balls like you do when reality comes knocking. Also, you just assume I'm an American, who's generalizing now? (PS: I'm not.)

To the rest of you, I know I'm obnoxious. In fact, I'd go even farther than that, but that doesn't really matter. You see, people like me get away with it. The same way we get away with wasting while the rest of you little people conserve. Don't you see that whatever you do to 'save' is just more for US to consume?

You know what, nevermind. I just realized how different things must feel sitting at the bottom looking up, versus sitting at the top looking down. My apologies to all of you. Well, I'm off to do whatever I want, to whom ever I want, all the time.

Cheers!

[Jack @ Jan 30th 2008 6:59AM]

what was this comment about again? sorry I kinda lost track after "damn hippies!" :)

[Freerefill @ Jan 30th 2008 12:08PM]

You all should listen to Dr. Awesome! He's absolutely correct that everyone he speaks to on Engadget is a dirty hippy, and that he's the magnum opus of humanity. We should all follow his example and drive those gas-guzzling cars, because we can afford to and we deserve it and our children, those little punks, are only here to clean up after us! Those that dare disobey, well, like the man said, bag his groceries so he can be on his way.

... The Internets are serious business folks, don't be forgetting that.

Might I just say, though, that people like him are good. They force good people to rise up and take a stand, and spread their wealth of information. I learned in Psychology 101 that correlation does not imply causation, but I had forgotten it until Dr. Awesome waved his miniscule pecker around and made some hidden intelligent soul bare the fruits of his mental labor. And once people like him have done their task, and the rest of us see the good in spreading the good, we will self-perpetuate, and we will no longer have need of people like him.

Take care folks, and don't forget, arguing on the Internet is like.. well, you've all heard it before.

[fhlh @ Jan 29th 2008 8:30PM]

what happens to the batteries when they go bad???
how "green" is their disposal?

[siry @ Jan 29th 2008 10:46AM]

the battery is 65% recoverable and the rest of the stuff is landfill safe

[Tom @ Jan 29th 2008 2:05PM]

How much energy and petroleum does it use to recover that 65% before dumping the 35%? That's another concern. Transportation to the refurb facility also dips into the "green" pot as well.

We need batteries with unlimited charge cycles. For the environment, and so that my cell can actually go a day without being tethered to the wall.

[TIMMAH! @ Jan 29th 2008 7:36PM]

Well their battery is made up of thousands of individual cells. Glad I'm not the guys tongue-testing those suckers to find out which one was dead. That's like the christmas light string from hell!

[ajc @ Jan 29th 2008 9:32AM]

if everyone rode small-engined scooters, the world would be a better place: economical, green.

And if it is yourself you're going to hurt when you crash and not some innocent bystander, more careful driving should result...

Some kind of waterproof may be required for those not in sunny regions!

[Nick Catalano @ Jan 29th 2008 9:40AM]

If I have it correctly, and odds are I don't, they still have airbags, just not those ones that have super-special-sensors that determine the weight of the passenger... so basically you cannot drive with your child in your Roadster

I believe

[kjb434 @ Jan 29th 2008 10:00AM]

green = BIG BUSINESS

All the evil corporations are seeing the complete falsehood that is the green movement (this means you Al Gore) as a way to profit off people thinking they are saving the planet (which doesn't need saving anyway).

[Nick @ Jan 29th 2008 11:26AM]

written like a true oil tycoon. You also forgot to use things like "Global warming is a hoax. There is nothing wrong with depending upon foreign oil. Oil and smog and emissions is good for our environment, it helps balance things out."

[Faar @ Jan 29th 2008 11:37AM]

What a load of horseballs. "Evil corporations" are for the most part merely paying lip service to environmentally conscious behaviour since it would cost them a lot of money to re-engineer their products and production lines to an environmentally sustainable method.

As for your nonsensical 'the earth doesn't need saving', I can only surmise you haven't paid attention to what we're actually doing to our planet. Even if you don't buy the whole global warming schtick, it's irrefutable that we're definitely poisoning this planet's biosphere with pollutants, whilst consuming raw resources at an enormous rate. In a mere hundred years we've consumed the planet's major reserves of petroleum, we've deforested huge areas, while farmland have become arid or deserts. The majority of humanity is starving and lacking clean drinking water. The remaining drinking water is diminishing, and its quality is reducing. Yearly, we release hundreds of billions of tons of heavy metals and compounds that are toxic and/or carcinogenic or have other effects on humans or other organisms, such as interfering with hormones or the nervous system for example.

I don't think an electric roadster's going to fix all this, advanced airbags or not. We do need to fix our planet though!

[kjb434 @ Jan 29th 2008 11:52AM]

Oh,

I forgot to add "Global Warming that is Man Made is a Hoax!"

I agrees that the Earth warms, but it also cools too. And we can't control it. To think we have an effect either way is completely arrogant.

Man Made Global Warming advocates still can't explain why Greenland had very little glacial coverage during and prior to the settlement by the Vikings. They left eventually because the summers were getting less warm over the time span of their settlements.

These advocates still can't explain that prior to the industrial revolution (which is credited to giving the rise to increased carbon in the atmosphere) that the world had much warmer period with tropical plant in Canada and Scotland.

[talkingtowalls @ Jan 29th 2008 1:30PM]

oh, so it's ok to just dump crap everywhere and use everything in front of us??? have you no sense of social responsibility? at all?

[blair @ Jan 29th 2008 4:19PM]

just because you dont fill a car up with gas or deisel dosent mean it is "enviromently friendly"
the so called green cars arent any better than cars that run ongas.... where do you think they get the energy to charge the batteries? ummmm.... power plants that burn coal and nuclear power plants. how is this any better than a gas powered car?

but the car is cool as anything and it will be enviromently friendly if all the power stations are powered by wind, solar energy, or the wave powered things (forgot what they are called)

-rant-

[siry @ Jan 29th 2008 10:46AM]

the waiver here had nothing to do with Tesla being an EV company. It is a waiver that has been granted to other car companies that produce cars in low volumes. the same waiver was granted to Lotus for the Elise & Exige

[BadVermin @ Jan 29th 2008 11:34AM]

The headline is highly misleading, the car still has airbags, probably the exact same type as 90% of the people on the road.

[vaiyach @ Jan 29th 2008 12:45PM]

Man! It breaks my heart to see that beuaty getting totalled!!
:-{

[mschaffer @ Jan 29th 2008 1:43PM]

So, this car is like the 1.0 beta version?

And it will be at least threee years before they fix the bugs.

[Nick @ Jan 29th 2008 2:07PM]

First off, this car will have airbags... just not the expensive fancy ones.

Secondly, I think Dr. Awesome must work for one of the big car companies which is afraid of change. But to go directly to name calling and personal attacks is the first sign of a weak hand.

With all the stereo-typing being thrown around here, not one person has really thought it through.

Conservatives have to love the Tesla because its American enterprise at it's finest. A man (much like Henry Ford) had a dream to make a car... and he's doing it.

The Liberals have to love the Tesla as well being that it's Ecco-Friendly.

As a Techie... I love it because it's a new form of technology. Battery cars have been around for quite a while but not one that has the speed and distance of this car.

Lastly, gasoline powered cars is technology that is over 100 years old. I think it's time for the gas powered engine to be shelved at the Smithsonian and let some new ideas come in and take over.

Where would the computer industry be if it weren't for the innovators’ like Hewett and Packard, Wozniak and Jobs, Jay Miner and many, many others.

I'm sure IBM hated seeing all these new companies start up and take the market share away from them. If they had their way, we would still be using Mainframes that take up half a city block.

Hmmm... just like the car and gas companies would love to see us all driving around in their SUV's and paying 90 bucks to fill up the tank at the pump.

It's time for these two industries to change or go the way of the horse and buggy.