The Cybertruck Appears to Be More Deadly Than the Infamous Ford Pinto, According to a New Analysis
-
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.
-
I was thinking “What’s that red stu—oh…” Yikes.
Melted plastic... right? Yup imma say it's melted platic
-
Safety belts are a waste of precious money!
Won't someone think of the shareholders!
-
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.
Yeah it's part of the enshitification process. This is why Lemmy appears superior to reddit thus far. On reddit, the quintessential early "are you stupid?" response is enough to shut down the conversation. I'm glad it didn't happen here.
And it's not even that I disagree that Teslas have major safety design faults, you cannot put door opening mechanism on an electric actuator, because you'll get trapped. I'd never buy a car that doesn't have a mechanical door latch at hand (it's hidden on teslas). Interestingly Teslas used to be considered one of the safest vehicles, but I think a lot of it is, the early EV adopter demographic is simply characterized by much safer driving, and as this demographic shifted, more and more reckless drivers obtained Teslas. (I've been driving EVs since 2017 and around 2022 the demographic shift, at least for Teslas, became very obvious)
-
Nah. The Ford Pinto laid the groundwork for the NHTSA's regulatory control of forced recalls. The only way this thing doesn't get recalled for being dangerous is if Musk's D. o. g. e manages to undercut or defund the NHTSA.
Additionally, other countries with better regulatory bodies won't even allow it to be sold or will require mandatory recall of these vehicles which means the end of the cyber truck. They can't even sell them because people don't want them.
The other thing is that insurance companies can absolutely refuse to insure them and if I'm honest, they may be the main reason that the NHTSA doesn't back down from regulating them (insurance companies are a powerful lobby, and they absolutely can countermand the automotive lobby in some cases).
My point is, it's more complicated than just "Musk is a government official now, and historically dangerous cars weren't recalled".
It will take Leon 20 minutes to shut down the whole agency claiming that they actually eat babies and people will just go with it.
-
Agreed. And that's where consumer choice comes in. People don't want them. Tesla is having to rework their entire plant to use the assembly lines that produce cybertrucks because they can't sell the ones they've already made. They projected and prepared to manufacturer and sell 500,000 and they've sold something like 40,000 and the rest are just sitting in retail lots or holding lots collecting dust. The best estimate seems to be that they might be able to sell another 30,000 in 2025. But with tax credits for EV's going away and other regulations going into effect world wide, that is probably a pipe dream.
On a scale from 0 to 3 (out of 10), how surprised would you be to read that the DHS decided to purchase 250.000 cybertrucks, because they are bulletproof? Before you go to Google it - I made it up, but there is a 50% chance of it coming in the next weeks.
-
On a scale from 0 to 3 (out of 10), how surprised would you be to read that the DHS decided to purchase 250.000 cybertrucks, because they are bulletproof? Before you go to Google it - I made it up, but there is a 50% chance of it coming in the next weeks.
I would be surprised for a lot of reasons. The main one being, they'd have to be dirt cheap and have an exceptional warranty agreement attached in order to compete with other automakers who make bulletproof vehicles. And, further there's too many other problems with the amount of information they collect that the DHS would not have full and direct control over. Tesla's are well known for recording anything and everything. We learned when they blew one up outside that Trump Hotel that they can be remotely locked by Tesla the company. A private company should not have that kind of direct access to government vehicles or any kind.
-
It will take Leon 20 minutes to shut down the whole agency claiming that they actually eat babies and people will just go with it.
I don't know why you keep saying intentionally inflammatory things that don't take into account the full list of factors and facts we have about how the real world works, but you do you, I guess.
-
the maga crowd has diesel truck attache to their very masculinity, thats never happening.
The MAGA crowd mostly needs to give their truck gender-affirming care by giving them truck nuts.
-
I don't know why you keep saying intentionally inflammatory things that don't take into account the full list of factors and facts we have about how the real world works, but you do you, I guess.
Because the way the world worked changed a few months ago. Trump is immune and has pardon powers.
-
I would be surprised for a lot of reasons. The main one being, they'd have to be dirt cheap and have an exceptional warranty agreement attached in order to compete with other automakers who make bulletproof vehicles. And, further there's too many other problems with the amount of information they collect that the DHS would not have full and direct control over. Tesla's are well known for recording anything and everything. We learned when they blew one up outside that Trump Hotel that they can be remotely locked by Tesla the company. A private company should not have that kind of direct access to government vehicles or any kind.
You mean that dog killer lady and Nazi weirdo care about competition and data security?
-
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.
And the answer is"What is the Poisson Distribution" Alex.
There is literally a distribution that describes the occurences of low probability events in large populations. It was developed to study deaths by horse kick in the Prussian army. So confidence intervals never come into it. You're applying Stats for Communications Majors reasoning to an adult problem.
