The Cybertruck Appears to Be More Deadly Than the Infamous Ford Pinto, According to a New Analysis
-
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.
-
I am positive that the government does want armored vehicles. But like I said before and like it says in the article, this was a call out out to all automakers by the federal government during the Biden administration. This isn't something Trump started when he got into office. Further, it's important to note that the article claimed that Tesla was the only car manufacturer that showed an interest.
I'd like to see the document because it's not clear from the article if this was a proposal or an order. And all of my reasoning for it not being a thing from before this article was posted still apply.