The Cybertruck Appears to Be More Deadly Than the Infamous Ford Pinto, According to a New Analysis
-
I love Elon Bad posts, but I think it's worthwhile to examine why Elon bad in this case.
Like many reactionaries, Elon's business philosophy is pure tech-bro-libertarianism. And like all libertarians, he's stuck in the neoliberal mindset of less regulation (don't scrutinize) and more efficiency (let me be cheap), in order to create the safe space that industrialists need to
extract, er create.He's literally said things like (paraphrasing)
When I see a specification for three bolts I ask: why can't we do it with two?
His transparent reasoning is that if he's allowed to cut corners, he'll save money today and consequences can be dealt with when they arise.
He's following the software model of release a minimally viable product and patch it later. Only instead of user frustration at being beta testers, you fucking die maybe.
He is like a child who is still rebelling against his parents who made him go to bed early too many times.
-
If you read the article is was specifically died by fire. Not any other cause of death.
Wish I could find data on all fatalities/100,000
-
If you read the article is was specifically died by fire. Not any other cause of death.
Top of the line in utility sports.
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts.
-
You mean he drew the design with a crayon?
-
Look, all I'm asking is that Tesla investors lose all their goddamn money.
Lol. You're getting your wish. They basically would be in the red if it weren't for some credits and Bitcoin they sold.
-
Might have something to do with it looking fucking stupid.
Most US trucks look fucking stupid. In my honest opinion.
-
This post did not contain any content.
No shit, it's literally just a big bullet. A wrecking ball on wheels.
-
If you read the article is was specifically died by fire. Not any other cause of death.
Right but the specific issue with the Pinto was that it would explode into flames on a rear impact, so this is the appropriate metric.
Like deaths from other accidents would skew the numbers anyway becausd 70s cars were death traps compared to today, but even in that context, the Pinto's explosions were alarming.
Beating it on that isolated metric is a very special kind of achievement.
-
Really took the wind out of my satirical comment that Musk wanted to bring back the Pinto.
Who needs satire when you have reality?
-
This post did not contain any content.
But at least its bulletproof!
-
This post did not contain any content.
I was thinking “What’s that red stu—oh…” Yikes.
-
that's how confirmation bias works, not statistical probabilities.
EM's still a nazi and the CT is a horrible joke, but this is still insufficient data.
Are you telling me that 35,000 vehicles is not a sufficient sample size to assess safety? Are you for real?
-
Are you telling me that 35,000 vehicles is not a sufficient sample size to assess safety? Are you for real?
No. Incidence is a measure of probability of events over time (or with cars alternatively over miles). If the number of events is low (and 4 is low), your confidence intervals are extremely wide (which is the statistical way to say, we have no idea what the real number may be).
The comparison is striking, the pinto had 27 fires over 9 years in >3M vehicles.
https://fuelarc.com/evs/its-official-the-cybertruck-is-more-explosive-than-the-ford-pinto/Let's add that idiots buy cybertrucks who disproportionately think it's bulletproof...
Again, "analyses" like this make great clickbait but contribute very little to our understanding, and that will remain the case even regardless of you getting angry at me about it or not.
-
No shit, it's literally just a big bullet. A wrecking ball on wheels.
The only thing that makes the cyberfuck safe is it's pricetag and it's virgin protector looks
-
But at least its bulletproof!
To bb guns
-
No. Incidence is a measure of probability of events over time (or with cars alternatively over miles). If the number of events is low (and 4 is low), your confidence intervals are extremely wide (which is the statistical way to say, we have no idea what the real number may be).
The comparison is striking, the pinto had 27 fires over 9 years in >3M vehicles.
https://fuelarc.com/evs/its-official-the-cybertruck-is-more-explosive-than-the-ford-pinto/Let's add that idiots buy cybertrucks who disproportionately think it's bulletproof...
Again, "analyses" like this make great clickbait but contribute very little to our understanding, and that will remain the case even regardless of you getting angry at me about it or not.
It's so great to be able to find comments such as yours, unfortunately it feels uncommon in Lemmy specially when certain names are mentioned, the bias and willfulness to shit on those are making people a bit blindsided and easy to guide through bad data usage. My first thought reading the title was about the statistical value of the numbers given, which doesn't detract from the actual quality or lack thereof of the vehicle. At the moment using elon musk or tesla in a title of an article will increase the traffic automatically. Which is why we constantly get every single shitty comment made by him reported with useless data.
-
It seems obvious in hindsight. Sheet metal doors will crumple in a way that can't be opened, trapping occupants. The fire doesn't need to start in the relatively safe and armored battery system. It could be pinched wiring causing a short that ignites plastic interiors, or a fire from another vehicle spreading to the cybertruck.
I'm sure someone mentioned all this to them during design.
Plus there's the electronic opening mechanisms that fail in the event of a fire. This is on most Teslas iirc. Even if the doors are intact, you're stuck.
There's ways to open them, but good luck with this shit when you're concussed from an accident, and sat in a burning vehicle.
https://www.tesla.com/ownersmanual/modely/en_us/GUID-AAD769C7-88A3-4695-987E-0E00025F64E0.html
-
Top of the line in utility sports.
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts.
CANYONERO!
-
The issue isn't the way of testing, but the two standards. If Musk blows up rockets in testing it's a genius move with rapid iteration. If NASA does this it's irresponsible handling of tax payer's money on risky endeavors.
I stand by my comment. Things break, shit happens, this is why we test them.
-
How do you do something "correctly" when nobody knows what that is? If your main priority is to do it "correctly" you will never develop anything fundamentally new.
A rocket is not fundamentally new and hasn’t been for almost 100 years.
Rockets perform correctly when they deliver their payload to the correct orbit.
You can calculate the energy density of fuels, the efficiency of your engines at various atmospheric pressures, and determine the payload size you can deliver with your engines and fuel. Blowing up rockets for “tests” is so 1950s. We have whole college programs on rocket design. We have desktop computers more powerful than anything available in the 1960s, and NASA managed to design the Saturn V, a rocket of similar size to starship, with the computers of the time and fucking slide rules. The Saturn V had its problem, but each rocket managed to deliver its payload and perform its part of the mission without blowing up.
Your comment is classic tech bro. No understanding of real engineering principles and only a desire to shove some shit out of the door as fast as possible.
