Yes, but some media, like Consumer Reports has factual data from consumers.CNN is a little touchy about it:
http://money.cnn.com/2018/05/24/technology/pacific-newsletter/index.html
As always, there's at least two sides to everything:
1. A journalist credibility tracking system wouldn't be a bad idea. People have made websites for tracking presidential promises vs. execution of said promises, and they actually exist for media websites as a whole, such as this one:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/tv/cnn/
Now, that webpage hasn't been updated since last year, but it shows that, at the time, the majority of CNN's statements aren't 100% factually true; that most - 37% - of what they say on air is "mostly true". So yes, citizens have a right to question the authenticity & truthfulness of a journalist & tracking those data points over time would be an effective way to see the credibility of an individual media representative. However, like this Verge article points out, crowdsourcing that probably isn't the best way to get to the truth:
https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/24/17390208/elon-musk-pravda-journalism-truth
On the other hand, Musk has been burned by the media time after time. Top Gear pretended they ran out of battery:
https://jalopnik.com/5115617/shocking-scandal-top-gear-tesla-didnt-run-out-of-juice
Then a New York Times reporter did the same thing, except the data showed otherwise:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/joannm...s-new-york-times-reporter-driving-in-circles/
Those were both very damaging media pieces to a fledgling car company, which is especially frustrating because (1) EV's can reduce gasoline & diesel pollution (although they create waste in other ways), and (2) both of those media pieces straight-up lied about it, which calls the credibility of the reports directly into question. The bottom line is that they had an agenda to fulfill & sold the public a lie, so it's no wonder that Musk is angry at the media, because a lot of consumer purchases are driven by media influence. And Musk has car data on his side, which he's been very careful to use to defend every newsworthy Tesla crash with on their official blog over the years.
2. On the flip side, Musk just shot himself in the foot. He's been the media darling for the past decade. He's the new Steve Jobs, minus the reputation of being an angry dictator closed doors, at least as far as anyone knows. He's providing a lot of good American jobs & making good products (lowering the price of safety-focused electric cars, selling solar panels, making rockets), he's endeared himself to consumers by answering their questions on Twitter, and overall projects such a fun image of the company that a lot of people are willing to forgive the constantly missed deadlines & buy into the hype machine because they do actually (eventually) deliver. If he's smart, he'll let go of the attack on the media & just keep letting his data do the talking. It's not too hard to get ousted from your own company these days, either...
Yes, but some media, like Consumer Reports has factual data from consumers.
The report also said that in the seconds before the crash, the Model X P100D sped up and veered into a gore area between U.S. Highway 101 and State Highway 85. The speed limit was 65 mph, and the car's adaptive cruise control was set at 75. The NTSB describes the final seconds:
- At 8 seconds prior to the crash, the Tesla was following a lead vehicle and was traveling about 65 mph.
- At 7 seconds prior to the crash, the Tesla began a left steering movement while following a lead vehicle.
- At 4 seconds prior to the crash, the Tesla was no longer following a lead vehicle.
- At 3 seconds prior to the crash and up to the time of impact with the crash attenuator, the Tesla's speed increased from 62 to 70.8 mph, with no pre-crash braking or evasive steering movement detected.
After striking the gore point's crash attenuator, the Tesla struck two other cars. The report also said the electric car's 400-volt battery was breached in the crash and caught fire. Bystanders pulled Huang from the wreckage before the fire engulfed the car, and he died later at a hospital. The fire was extinguished in 10 minutes, but it reignited later that day in an impound lot. Then it reignited five days after the March 23 crash, and firefighters again had to extinguish it.
NTSB: Driver killed in Tesla Autopilot crash did not have hands on wheel:
https://www.autoblog.com/2018/06/07/ntsb-report-tesla-model-x-crash/
Some things to note:
1. The driver had 8 seconds to get his attention back on the road from whatever he was doing. That's both a lot of time, and not a lot of time. If you had driven thousands of miles in Autopilot & were playing on your phone, you could easily be lulled into a false sense of security, and 8 seconds goes by quick if you're not paying attention.
2. The accident caused a battery first. The car was then moved to an impound lot, and caught on fire again, later that same day. Five days later, it caught on fire again. Yikes!
Those batteries are in series, and there are often several hundred of them, right? It's not uncommon for those fires, when they happen, to go on for days like that, because it just goes from one battery to the next and I don't think you can effectively extinguish them.
I think when Richard Hammond crashed that Rimac last year, it was on fire for a week or two because that thing has a couple thousand mini cells, or something like that.
Yeah, iirc the lastest model S has something like 7,000+ individual batteries in a format a little bigger than an AA battery. Also, from what I've seen, high speeds are typically involved in the fire-related accidents. An unfortunate recent example that appears to be speed-related:
https://electrek.co/2018/05/09/tesla-model-s-fatal-crash-fire-national/
As Eletrek points out, however - statistically, roughly 500 gas-powered cars catch on fire every single day in the United States. Although Tesla EV's are a little scary because people seem to have a hard time getting out of them & then burn to death inside. I'm not sure how that compares to a gas-powered car, in terms of a fire from liquid fuel, but it sounds awful either way.
I'm not sure how that compares to a gas-powered car, in terms of a fire from liquid fuel, but it sounds awful either way.
Teenagers driving a $50k+ car...useless loser parents. Teenagers get 10+year-old beaters and learn how to live with that.
Gasoline needs a spark/fire to ignite. Lithium batteries just need to be punctured or shorted so you don't immediately realize there's a problem. There's generally a brief delay before they go but once the chain reaction starts, you get a very large fire very quickly that's extremely hard to put out.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCGtRgBUHX8
Now picture that multiplied by 7,000.
Well, it is not 7000
https://www.instagram.com/p/Bh4bgGSlXwx/?taken-by=teslamotors
So there's statistics & safety ratios, but when accidents, especially high-speed accidents, DO happen & when the electric vehicles catch on fire, they tend to burn & burn hard. So there is a risk involved in driving an electric vehicle...as there is in a gas vehicle.
Your link to instagram doesn't seem to link where you wanted it. I don't see any statistics related to crashes.
Anecdotal evidence (burns "long" and "hard") really doesn't help quantify whether a Tesla is any more or less likely to injure the occupants in a fire. It doesn't speak to how statistically likely it is for a Tesla to catch fire.
If folks aren't willing to find the data and make meaningful comparisons, then it's pointless to play this qualitative game and talk about our feelings toward Tesla's cars. Because that's all a discussion really boils down to if statistics aren't being cited.
Well, it is not 7000 and all of this is just wrong. Are you 12?
The lack of technical understanding about Tesla's battery modules is just morbid. Linking this brown bag "battery" experiment is just beyond pure ignorance. Most post in Tesla hate threads are so stupid that even 1st gen bots would "write" something better. Terrible, just terrible.
That's the right one, it was about the number of electric miles driven to date - just for the sake of discussion, in terms of the growing prevalence of electric vehicles on the road. Statistical quantification is hard, especially when trying to compare dissimilar vehicles, and if there's anything I've learned over the years, people can swing the data around to fit their agenda. And you're absolutely right about qualitative vs. emotional discussions. From a non-analytical point of view, one of the things that scares me the most about Tesla vehicles - aside from Autopilot occasionally trying to kill you - is that the battery fires can be pretty deadly.
Now, stepping back a moment, we have to ask how that compares to ICE vehicles, as Tesla technically has a 5.4-star safety rating, which is the highest of any consumer vehicle ever tested afaik, especially in terms of how a similar vehicle would fare in a similar crash. Would an ICE vehicle have more damage, or also catch on fire from the fuel, or potentially explode? Difficult to say, without replicating the circumstances. But as you mentioned, feelings are also a factor in the discussion, and being trapped in a Tesla when it catches on fire looks pretty scary to me.
Tesla has highest safety rating? That must be old news. For example the new Volvo XC60 has much better result in all areas in euro NCAP rating, for example adult occupant rating is 98% vs 82%
see here:
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/volvo/xc60/28534
https://www.euroncap.com/en/results/tesla/model-s/7897
I think fairly recently they changed the front and rear subframe. I could be 100% wrong though.Wow, impressive! Looks like Volvo is keeping their safety record intact!
I wonder how a 2017 Tesla would compare (they only have a 2014). I know they changed the nose, but I don't know if anything underlying changed or not.
I think fairly recently they changed the front and rear subframe. I could be 100% wrong though.
I'm curious to see the newer Volvo's in terms of both safety & longevity. I think the S90 is now made in China...
It will be even worse with the new S60 (launch very soon ), it will be made in South Carolina
Safety is no issue with China made Volvos (only S90 is exported from China I believe), the engineering is still completely made in Volvo headquarter in Sweden.
The quality should be OK as well, the Volvo plant in China are made according to same requirements as those in Europe, and a lot of Swedish managers and engineers are working for a few years on site in China.
And most Volvos are still made in the two big plants in Gothenburg and Gent (Belgium). And there are no plans to decrease volumes in those plants. So Volvo is not getting Chineese, just more global. And this strategy also works excellent from business point of view. Volvo is doing really well at the moment
True, but show us where Tesla is recalling any of these cars that run into objects are burst into flames while being driven?
Starting with vehicle bodies manufactured as of March 6, all cars have been outfitted with a triple underbody shield. Tesla service will also retrofit the shields, free of charge, to existing cars upon request or as part of a normally scheduled service.