The Cybertruck Appears to Be More Deadly Than the Infamous Ford Pinto, According to a New Analysis
-
yeah certainly not enough to have statistical significance
-
that driver was just a fucking moron
I mean, he bought a cybertruck lol
-
They aren't the only people who have a say in what happens. It's funny to me that y'all clearly don't know how the government works or how much red tape there is. Tesla is an overvalued and under performing company that barely deserves to be called an automotive manufacturer.
The government has already signed contracts with other car manufacturers for the purposes of armored vehicles. Those manufacturers will absolutely sue for breach of contract in the event that the government doesn't pay them and utilize their vehicles. Further, there are still regulations and specifications that are required to be met. They can't fire everyone no matter how much they think they can. And Congress will not jeopardize their cash cows.
It's a lot of different echelons of the government that this type of thing has to go through and it's definitely not going to happen overnight. I'm not saying it can't happen. I'm saying that it'll take time and the other automotive companies will fight back against anything they see as a conflict of interest.
I can understand that people think things look bleak. But like half of what's going on right now is scare tactics to make the general populace capitulate without a fight. The people who know how things work are very rarely ever at the top of anything. The people who get shit done are rarely at the top.
The budget is already signed sealed and delivered. Where's DHS gonna get this money? Because I would bet other car manufacturers have already bid for the contract for new vehicles. So unless you've got something that says Tesla won the bid, quit playing with me.
-
You'd be surprised at how little it's changed. Oligarchs are still oligarchs. You think the Ford and GMC CEOs are just gonna let Musk come in and eat their lunch when they have a whole swathe of legal teams just waiting for the government to breach a contract?
-
I think we can count on the corruption and legal rights of other companies more than you think apparently. Tesla's not the only car company. They certainly don't have the same pull in the government as Ford and GMC and Dodge. Tesla is a brand new player who cannot be trusted to follow the rules and deactivate or unequip any sensors and components for tracking that the government would require (on trucks they have already manufactured for the civilian market. The government don't have the qualified personnel to upkeep these vehicles, and that's assuming they even have a place to store a fleet of them that's covered parking.
A government software load out is not going to be enough. When the government buys vehicles they specifically have them manufactured to a spec and that spec would have to involve the removal and or lack of installation of most of the sensors and capabilities the vehicle comes with stock. So they either have to buy them as is and modify them (which requires personnel with a specific set of training and qualifications, or they have to be manufactured to that spec at the Tesla factory (or retrofitted to remove the unwanted components).
DHS's armored and unarmored fleets can be washed, can be parked in an uncovered lot, can be maintenanced by the personnel they already have. There's way more to buying a fleet of vehicles than just the price tag for individual units.
I work on planes for a living including government planes when we get the contract for those and let me tell you, they differ quite a lot from conventional civilian planes even when the base plane is the same. Tesla doesn't already have a contract and even if they get one that money isn't allocated to them in the budget. There's plenty of other reasons why I think this is a BS take, but man even corruption has a shelf life. Trump may be out of office in a couple of years but the entire government won't just up and retire with him.
-
I mean, it's fatal to my eyes, because it's so ugly.
-
Why are we talkaing about this? Who needs this sheet?
-
Absolutely! What's weird is that Teslas have been top-rated for crash-worthiness in the past, so there are a few possibilities I can think of:
- They need to be top crash-worthy, because of the stupid autopilot trying its best to kill the occupants
- They need to be top crash-worthy, because otherwise any crash at all would result in a fiery death
- The Cybertruck is an outlier and is not as crash-worthy as the previous Teslas
- All of the above
What was that rule of thumb for taking multiple choice tests? If you don't know the answer, always select "all of the above"?
-
Yeah I've seen some bits about that, they were looking into how Musk was interfering with the Ukraine war I think?
-
Have you seen how fast other companies roll over to this admin? Why care about a 100M contract when you can get a 1B tax break?
And you are thinking about red tape in a sane government. Here you comply or get fired and replaced with a yes man.
-
I hope you are right, but all oligarchs fell in line real quick so far. Donating millions to Trump, getting rid of DEI, unbanning nazis, etc. Tax breaks are coming and they don't want to be excluded.
-
Those companies so far aren't in conflict with Tesla. Bear that in mind because it's important to the conversation and the topic at hand. I doubt Facebook gives a damn if Tesla can skirt recalls. Ford or GMC or Dodge would absolutely care, especially if it's preferential treatment which it invariably would be because of Musk's "position" in the government. He's got a conflict of interest that stacks things against other automakers and they would be stupid not to counter that any way they can.
-
I hope you are right, but I'm afraid they will just go with it, because it's easier and more profitable to side with the dictator.
-
I wonder if Elon is a follower of Ayn Rand?
-
-
Did you read this article?
"Trump administration says it has no plans to fulfill $400 million 'armored Tesla' contract" - thats the headline.
And it doesn't specify which kinda of vehicles, nor does it give anything other than a general timeline of interest.
Basically sounds like the government put out feelers to see which automakers were interested in potentially making armored vehicles for the government that were electric and only Tesla responded. And further, it doesn't say why that plan was scrapped, but it literally also started in the Biden administration, not the Trump administration. There's a lot of supposition in that article. I wouldn't call this conclusive.
-
Note that it says article (and headline) were updated. At the time the article just had the State department document about 400m in armored Tesla. Then after initial backlash the document was amended to say armored electric vehicles. Then eventually the Trump administration declared this was not a thing and to the extent it was a thing, it was Biden.
Now it could be as they say, but it is also the Trump administration, that isn't too big on the truth. So hard to say if this was a mishap about a misleading document, or something that was fired off without the broader approval of the PJ2025 folk and it getting killed after coming to light and needing a cover story as to why things didn't get close to as blatantly corrupt as it sounded.
