The Cybertruck Appears to Be More Deadly Than the Infamous Ford Pinto, According to a New Analysis
-
Wish I could find data on all fatalities/100,000
-
Top of the line in utility sports.
Unexplained fires are a matter for the courts.
-
You mean he drew the design with a crayon?
-
Lol. You're getting your wish. They basically would be in the red if it weren't for some credits and Bitcoin they sold.
-
Most US trucks look fucking stupid. In my honest opinion.
-
No shit, it's literally just a big bullet. A wrecking ball on wheels.
-
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.
-
Who needs satire when you have reality?
-
But at least its bulletproof!
-
I was thinking “What’s that red stu—oh…” Yikes.
-
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.
-
The only thing that makes the cyberfuck safe is it's pricetag and it's virgin protector looks
-
To bb guns
-
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.
-
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
-
CANYONERO!
-
I stand by my comment. Things break, shit happens, this is why we test them.
-
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.
-
Melted plastic... right? Yup imma say it's melted platic
