Slashdot Mirror


Musk Lashes Back Over Tesla Fire Controversy

Nerval's Lobster writes "A small handful of Tesla electric cars have caught fire, driving down the company's stock price, and finally prompting CEO Elon Musk to tackle the issue in a new blog posting. 'Since the Model S went into production last year, there have been more than a quarter million gasoline car fires in the United States alone, resulting in over 400 deaths and approximately 1,200 serious injuries (extrapolating 2012 NFPA data),' he wrote in that posting. 'However, the three Model S fires, which only occurred after very high-speed collisions and caused no serious injuries or deaths, received more national headlines than all 250,000+ gasoline fires combined.' Responsible journalism on the matter, he added, has been 'drowned out' by 'an onslaught of popular and financial media seeking to make a sensation out of something that a simple Google search would reveal to be false.' According to his own figures, Tesla suffers an average of one fire per 6,333 cars, versus a rate of one fire per 1,350 gasoline-powered cars. Every Tesla vehicle includes internal walls between the battery modules, in addition to a firewall between the battery pack and the passenger compartment — enough shielding, in the event of a fire, to prevent pens and papers in the glove compartment from combusting. 'Despite multiple high-speed accidents, there have been no deaths or serious injuries in a Model S of any kind ever,' Musk continued. 'Of course, at some point, the law of large numbers dictates that this, too, will change, but the record is long enough already for us to be extremely proud of this achievement.' Tesla is about to push an 'over-the-air update' to its vehicles' air suspension that will create more ground clearance at highway speeds. In theory, that could reduce the chances of impact damage to the underbody, should the vehicle roll over an object — and that, in turn, could lower the chances of fire."

487 comments

  1. How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    250K gasoline car fires, yes, but how many of those cars were 12 months old???

    1. Re:How about NEW cars? by Xicor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      a huge number of them.

    2. Re:How about NEW cars? by Pumpkin+Tuna · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How many ran over heavy, jagged pieces of metal at highway speeds?

    3. Re:How about NEW cars? by mjr167 · · Score: 2
    4. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't matter HOW new a car is, gasoline burns the same.

    5. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      How many high-speed collisions resulting in a ruptured gas tank end in fire, regardless of the age of the car? Gasoline has a much higher energy density than, say, a current-day lithium-ion battery pack, so it's pretty silly to even /pretend/ that gas-powered cars have the upper hand here.

    6. Re:How about NEW cars? by tlhIngan · · Score: 4, Interesting

      All kinds of cars catch fire.

      To be fair, those were Fiskers which had acquired a reputation for catching fire if you look ta them wrong.

      And no matter what they claim - it was a short in the 12 volt system that caused the fire. Something every car has, even the Tesla (it's used to run all the traditional 12V accessories in a car - ventilation, windows, lights, etc).

    7. Re:How about NEW cars? by Shark · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I have no special love for Tesla or Musk but I think I have to agree with him there. Looking at the facts, these fires are not a very big deal, especially given the age of the (mainstream) electric car market. Sure, efforts should be made to aleviate the issue but obviously, if an accident punctures a battery there's a chance of fire just as there is one if you puncture a gas tank.

      --
      Mind the frickin' laser...
    8. Re:How about NEW cars? by sunderland56 · · Score: 0, Troll

      Yes.... but typically a Tesla has no gasoline on board. You'd think that a lack of chance of fire would be a Tesla selling point.

      I'm not sure about Musk's statement that the fies "only occurred after very high-speed collisions". Doing 70 on the freeway and running over some debris is neither high speed, nor a collision.

    9. Re:How about NEW cars? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 5, Funny

      On the bright side...every Tesla that burns is one more whose battery lasted the entire vehicle life without need for replacement.

    10. Re:How about NEW cars? by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      Yes, it is. It's not like it was a hubcap, and you've got a strange definition of "high-speed" - this is miles per hour, not kilometers per hour.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    11. Re:How about NEW cars? by mlts · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It is just statistics. More Tesla cars on the roads, the higher the chance of one of them getting hit. This is just me, but I'm still pretty impressed by their crash record.

      The one thing I'm really curious about is how many Priuses catch fire in wrecks. Priuses tend to be the mainstream vehicle, in terms of popularity, with an EV subsystem, so they should be the standard of how much damage causes a fire or not.

    12. Re:How about NEW cars? by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Curious....Here's a question I don't think we've asked yet. What percentage of car fires are intentional? I know for a fact it happens as an insurance recovery scheme, but have no clue as to how often.

    13. Re:How about NEW cars? by TWX · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Doesn't matter HOW new a car is, gasoline burns the same.

      While the fuel will burn the same, the amount of time and mileage before a fire occurs is important. If 90% of models are end-of-lifed and junked out before there's a statistically significant chance of fire in that model, then it's much less of a problem than if it's new cars that are catching on fire, because not only is there a probability of an older, rarer-in-service model having a fire, but there's now a problem of new models, of which there are many more in service, catching fire.

      Most of the car fires that I've seen have involved carbureted vehicles, which are older, possess a greater quantity of fuel up in the engine bay (in the fuel bowls), and have moving parts that have an opportunity go gum up and stick (the floats and the needles-and-seats). While fuel pressures are low, the rubber lines, fuel pump diaphragms, and carburetor gaskets are all places that are close to significant amounts of electricity and thus are fairly likely to spark off if a leak occurs.

      I don't want to comment on the abortion that is TBI, but most post-fire EFI vehicles that I've seen have had passenger compartment fires, not engine/drivetrain/fuelsystem fires. Certainly there are burned-up EFI vehicles, but again, it should not happen to new vehicles.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    14. Re:How about NEW cars? by TWX · · Score: 2

      ...but obviously, if an accident punctures a battery there's a chance of fire just as there is one if you puncture a gas tank.

      How likely is one to puncture the gas tank though, and how much risk of fire is there if the gas tank is ruptured, compared to if a battery is ruptured?

      Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of electric vehicles and have mulled doing a conversion on my quarter-ton pickup, but I don't like the idea of high-centering on a foreign object causing a fire.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    15. Re:How about NEW cars? by Jeremi · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yes.... but typically a Tesla has no gasoline on board. You'd think that a lack of chance of fire would be a Tesla selling point.

      Accelerating a car takes energy. That energy has to be stored on board the car. Whenever you store a lot of energy in a small space, there is a risk that the energy could be released. Gasoline is not uniquely dangerous in that respect.

      Doing 70 on the freeway and running over some debris is neither high speed, nor a collision.

      70 miles per hour is high speed. The car collided with the debris.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    16. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how much risk of fire is there if the gas tank is ruptured, compared to if a battery is ruptured?

      Battery Ruptured, 100% chance of fire.
      Gas tank ruptured less than 100% change of fire.

    17. Re:How about NEW cars? by paiute · · Score: 1

      running over some debris is neither high speed, nor a collision.

      If the Concorde had been electric, all those people would still be alive.

      --
      If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
    18. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      More than enough of those cars just...catch fire. Leaking gas lines, oil/fluid leaks dripping on to cataclysmic converters... no collisions involved.
      Far in the Tesla's favor are monitoring systems that tell the driver something serious is amiss, and where/what, rather than just relying on smells, cabin filled with smoke, flames coming out from under the hood...or the check engine light.
      New cars, with their fine multi-function LCD panels, should all be able to list out engine codes w/o dealer intervention or other hardware, even while running. But only Tesla does...

    19. Re:How about NEW cars? by DrXym · · Score: 1

      I agree too, but at the same time there is a very useful saying - never buy version 1.0 of anything. And that applies especially to motor vehicles regardless of their mode of propulsion. They usually suffer recalls and that's just for the critical / safety related problems that the loss adjusters say can't wait. There must be a raft of lesser but still serious issues which either cannot be fixed or only get fixed if you bring the car in for a service. Raising the suspension in vehicles sounds like a kludge for an issue which cannot be fixed in any other way short of strengthening the underside of the car.

    20. Re:How about NEW cars? by AlphaWolf_HK · · Score: 1

      The car collided with an object at 70MPH. Both high speed and a collision.

      --
      Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
    21. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      70 miles per hour is high speed. The car collided with the debris.

      Speed is relative. 70 mph is below the highway speed limit in many areas of the US, and just above it in most others- I'd call that average highway speed, not high speed. Certainly not, as Musk said very high speed.

    22. Re:How about NEW cars? by war4peace · · Score: 1, Troll

      So... if it's not high speed according to YOU... when it's not high speed according to ANYONE.

      Hey fellas! I think we just found l'ombelico del mondo!

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    23. Re:How about NEW cars? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      That is not a normal consideration of "high speed." I should think you'd recognize this.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    24. Re:How about NEW cars? by Vanderhoth · · Score: 1

      I don't think a battery rupturing has a 100% chance of catching fire. I've seen a Lithium Ion laptop battery explode, because someone shot it, but not catch fire so l doubt it's a 100% chance of catching fire. Conversely every time I've seen a gas can shot there was fire after. Just my take, but it only takes one instance where something that happens 100% of the time didn't happen to prove it doesn't happen 100% of the time.

    25. Re:How about NEW cars? by daem0n1x · · Score: 1

      155 MPH? How much is that in ells per muhurta (EPM)?

    26. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      That is not high speed. Let me tell you about high speed... 155 MPH is what I drive on the autobahn. THAT's high speed. 70 is chugging along on1 the highway at normal speeds.

      155 mph?? You call THAT high speed? Hah! Try doing over 14,000 MPH on your dinky autobahn. Call me when you can do even half of that!

      Signed, MAVEN

    27. Re:How about NEW cars? by MobyDisk · · Score: 1

      Hybrids have much smaller batteries than electric vehicles, so the risk of fire is lower. Also, I think the Prius uses a ni-cad not a li-ion, so they are less combustible.

    28. Re:How about NEW cars? by TWX · · Score: 1

      I've seen ruptured fuel tanks in car accidents a couple of times, no fire.

      I've had a fuel line leak at the carburetor fitting, dripping fuel that pooled on the intake manifold, no fire. Ended up having to replace the carburetor to fix that one.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    29. Re:How about NEW cars? by LunaticTippy · · Score: 2

      The US Fire Administration collects detailed statistics. You can check out the latest report Here

      There are 7% categorized as intentional, with an additional 10% as under investigation, which may have some convincing arsons.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    30. Re:How about NEW cars? by bitt3n · · Score: 5, Funny

      how many Priuses catch fire in wrecks

      As any Prius owner will be happy to inform you, Priuses don't catch fire unless the owner has purchased a sufficient number of carbon credits to compensate for the fire's environmental impact.

    31. Re:How about NEW cars? by harperska · · Score: 4, Informative

      Just because one high speed happens to be slower than another high speed doesn't mean it is not high speed. In this case, as we are talking about collisions, high speed means significantly faster than the average 35-40mph that crash tests are generally done at. 70mph, 80mph and 155mph all satisfy that definition of "significantly faster than 40mph" and therefore all can be considered high speed when discussing collisions.

    32. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your data is so very convincing.

    33. Re:How about NEW cars? by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      If it improves over gas, it improves over gas. Look at it in a medical outcomes sense, "hard outcomes", like death, heart attack, stroke, used to analyze treatments (like that niacin-based drug that did what it was supposed to -- raise HDL or good cholesterol -- yet hard outcomes remained the same.)

      This car = far fewer fires and deaths per car, per person, per mile, per whatever.

      Look for similar things with fully robot driving cars: a bunch of hoopla over accidents, nevermind deaths will plummet vs. idiotic biological organism drivers. Look for lawyers to sue and suck up profits of these risky projects.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    34. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      though others seem to be idiots, I agree with you. A speed which over half (probably closer to 2/3rd) of the driving population do nearly every day isn't exactly high speed. It's normal speed.

    35. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      70MPH is the typical high-end on speed limits in the States, and there are very few cars sold here which would be capable of 155MPH in any case. So, by definition, in any way that matters, yes, 70MPH is "high speed."

      Of course, you knew all that, and just wanted a chance to brag about your peni... er... awesome car.

    36. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Typical highways -- those things that routinely have small towns and associated speed traps built along them -- do not, in any jurisdiction, average above 70MPH. You're thinking of the Interstate system, which only comprises a fraction of the total US highway system, and even then I'd need to see proof that "most" of it is rated for 70+MPH.

      Even if 70 was the posted limit on every road, everywhere, that wouldn't make it the "average highway speed." You do know what "limit" means, right? Even accounting for the average Joe's propensity to violate the posted limit, you aren't going to see enough people driving in the 100MPH range in enough places to make 70 the average.

      A speed of 70MPH may not be worthy of the racetrack, but it's fast enough to get you a ticket on the vast, vast majority of the roads in America, which is kinda the point Musk was making.

    37. Re:How about NEW cars? by JeffAtl · · Score: 1

      There is no such thing as "normal" speed. "High speed" vs "low speeds" usually refers to the expected severity of impacts and collisions.

    38. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      FWIW, when the IIHS does frontal crash tests, they do them at 40MPH and 100% of the cars tested are totaled during the test. Yes, cars go above 40 MPH, but beyond that point, keeping the vehicle healthy/whole is no longer a priority or expectation....only the safety of the driver and passengers matters.

      In that regard, Teslas have fared quite well and passengers have been given ample time to exit the vehicle. The only area where Tesla needs to improve is in communication with the various first responders. They need to know that electric cars are different and have different safety considerations. The fire department needs to know that they shouldn't be using water to put out the fire and that they need to exercise a different type of caution when trying to pry open a deformed vehicle to free the occupants. If there is one area where Tesla has failed, it's in its outreach programs to educate the people who need to know about the differences between electric cars and regular gasoline powered vehicles.

    39. Re:How about NEW cars? by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 1

      And how many of them simply ran over debris in the roadway then burst into flame?

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    40. Re:How about NEW cars? by ravenlord_hun · · Score: 1

      ...or not, if the exploding tire damaged the li-on batteries and got the plane burnt up all the same. Or, failing that, suddenly de-powered the engines in the middle of a takeoff.

      Now, on the other hand, if the concorde didn't have landing gears and used some magical levitation method.... :p

    41. Re:How about NEW cars? by Quila · · Score: 1

      So, that's about 3.5 kilos going 31 m/s, for 1,681 J. That's about the muzzle energy of the average .44 Magnum load.

    42. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and cost over 100k and driven every day vs every other day for tesla

    43. Re:How about NEW cars? by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      Driving at 70mph is high speed. Colliding with debris is a collision. I'm not sure what you meant when you said otherwise.

    44. Re:How about NEW cars? by cusco · · Score: 1

      The bottom of the battery is covered with a 1/4 inch sheet steel, there's not a lot more 'strengthening' that's going to happen without seriously affecting performance/range/stability. Personally, if I hit something going fast enough to punch through 1/4 inch of steel I'm going to assume that there's a good chance I'm going to die anyway.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    45. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Battery Ruptured, 100% chance of fire.

      Citation needed.

    46. Re:How about NEW cars? by beltsbear · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In the CONTEXT of automobile collisions and accidents it certainly is high speed.

    47. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Untrue, since it is the battery that starts on fire first, then they miss that mark by a slim margin.

    48. Re:How about NEW cars? by pepty · · Score: 1

      I'm ecstatic just to avoid crawling in stop and go traffic when driving in LA, let alone cruising at 70mph. Do you do most of your driving between 3-5AM on sundays?

    49. Re:How about NEW cars? by khellendros1984 · · Score: 1

      174,592 EPM, for whatever use that is.

      --
      It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
    50. Re: How about NEW cars? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Exactly why don't cars have an option that tells you what idiot lights are lit and what they mean? The service engine soon light can come on if the gas cap isn't on correctly. How is the average person supposed to know?

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    51. Re:How about NEW cars? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Correct, mine has ni-cad cells in it.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    52. Re:How about NEW cars? by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      Everyone who brings this up keeps failing to mention how they hit that debris hard enough for it to punch a large hole though 1/4" of steel to find that battery...

      A 5.56x45 NATO round will just barely make it through that much steel. Consider that.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    53. Re:How about NEW cars? by Mashiki · · Score: 1

      Not really true, not all cars run on 12 volt, some are 24v and some are 36v as well. Expect to see more of that coming in the years, GM was one of the first to start transitioning it's higher end cars and some trucks to a 24v system. Ford, and Chrysler have also done it.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    54. Re:How about NEW cars? by DrXym · · Score: 1
      It's not steel, it's aluminium. There are also hypotheses that the impact didn't need to pierce the metal but could have caused the battery to arc and catch fire.

      Either way it serves as an example of a repair which would be very difficult / expensive to rectify. Hence why they might push a software hack to jack the suspension up a bit.

    55. Re:How about NEW cars? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      I'm ecstatic just to avoid crawling in stop and go traffic when driving in LA, let alone cruising at 70mph. Do you do most of your driving between 3-5AM on sundays?

      I'm referring mostly to driving on I-10, especially between New Orleans and Baton Rouge. At a measly 70mph, you will get run over by just about everyone. In the city..I hit hear 60mph on city streets quite often...where they've been repaved post Katrina.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    56. Re: How about NEW cars? by dead_user · · Score: 1

      They're not. They're supposed to go in for an servicing at an authorized dealer only dammit!

    57. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, more than fucking 3.

    58. Re:How about NEW cars? by omnichad · · Score: 2

      This car = far fewer fires and deaths per car, per person, per mile, per whatever.

      Not to discredit you, because it doesn't, but that's also due in part to who can afford a Tesla. You don't have too many idiot 16 year olds with Teslas. You also don't see any 20 year old Teslas on the road.

    59. Re:How about NEW cars? by makomk · · Score: 1

      To be fair, if that had happened to Model S's then Elon Musk and his supporters would be spinning it as a good thing and the media coverage as some kind of anti-electric-car crusade just as he is with the Model S fires - after all, not only did no-one get hurt by the fires, there was essentially no chance of anyone getting hurt because no-one was in the cars at the time, and it only happened as a result of them being underwater.

    60. Re:How about NEW cars? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the 6V systems from yesteryear, still in many pre-1970s cars. And we won't even go into the insanity that is a positive-ground system as used in many European cars...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    61. Re:How about NEW cars? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      If the vehicle bounced at all, the weight of the vehicle would give a fair bit of downward force.

    62. Re:How about NEW cars? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      70 MPH is the posted speed limit on lots of freeways around the US. In other words, a normal operational speed. Definitely not "high speed".

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    63. Re:How about NEW cars? by vistic · · Score: 1

      Why are you confusing the magnitude of the speed with how common the speed is? High speed doesn't become slow speed just because most people regularly drive at high speed.

    64. Re:How about NEW cars? by pepty · · Score: 1

      Ah, that LA. Makes sense now. I should have looked at your username.

    65. Re:How about NEW cars? by operagost · · Score: 1

      It's a lot higher than the speed we'd want to be going when we run into something.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    66. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Force = Mass * Acceleration.

      An impact is a sudden negative acceleration for the car, and for the piece of debris at rest, is also a sudden acceleration. There's a lot more force there than a little bullet. Bullets achieve their ability to penetrate from concentrating their force in a small area. Now, you take something with the mass of a car, have it strike an unmoving object (concentrating the force of the car in a small area) and it's a surprise it goes through stuff that a typical round won't? Wonders...

    67. Re: How about NEW cars? by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Exactly why don't cars have an option that tells you what idiot lights are lit and what they mean?

      Because why settle for selling a car when you can sell a car yet keep the vic-customer paying over and over and over again for maintenance?

      The only thing better than planned obsolescence is planned obsolescence where you don't actually have to manufacture a new item, but just reset a counter on the old one.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    68. Re:How about NEW cars? by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      The fucking point is we're talking about a collision at speeds that usually involve totaling cars, and people are trying to act like someone ran over a pepsi bottle in the parking lot and the car bust into flames.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    69. Re:How about NEW cars? by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Yeah, how about "can I reasonably expect to have a chance of driving away after an accident at this speed"? 30 mph, depending on angle, sure. 70 mph? Ehhhhh...I doubt it.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    70. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not high speed. Let me tell you about high speed... 155 MPH is what I drive on the autobahn. THAT's high speed. 70 is chugging along on the highway at normal speeds.

      You gonna get where you're going one of these days?

    71. Re:How about NEW cars? by mjr167 · · Score: 1

      I thought if a Prius caught fire it was cause the owner lit the off-market floor mats on fire because all problems with a Prius are related to operator error.

    72. Re:How about NEW cars? by AaronW · · Score: 1

      The Prius never used NiCd. The Prius used NiMH though they now use lithium-ion. It's a much smaller battery, 4.4kWh vs 85kWh for the Tesla.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    73. Re:How about NEW cars? by AaronW · · Score: 1

      Not all Tesla battery punctures resulted in a fire. There was at least one case which did not result in a fire.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    74. Re:How about NEW cars? by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Oh, sure. In fact, I would posit that ANY speed is higher than we'd want to be going when we run into something. But labeling a rather common, ordinary speed as "very high speed" - which Mr. Musk did - is more for "shading" the argument than being accurate. Because, in fact, it is not accurate. In his own locale, 70 MPH is on the low-side of things on the freeways...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    75. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "cataclysmic converters"

      Too bad the villagers in Pompei didn't have one of those.......

    76. Re:How about NEW cars? by AaronW · · Score: 1

      Well, this car didn't burst into flames but I think this is more scarey than a fire...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJUWXRWK4xs
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oeCe6ff2IY
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N2Oj2M011d4

      Since the battery is under the passenger compartment, if road debris is able to penetrate the 1/4" thick aluminum plate imagine what it would do with the thin sheet metal and plastic under a normal car.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    77. Re:How about NEW cars? by JamieIanMacgregor · · Score: 1

      the Ford Anglia is just begging for a changeover, the wipers and starter motor work just fine with negative ground

    78. Re:How about NEW cars? by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Wow I need to get a cataclysmic converter for my car!

    79. Re:How about NEW cars? by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      "New cars, with their fine multi-function LCD panels, should all be able to list out engine codes w/o dealer intervention or other hardware, even while running."

      Oh so I guess the poor dealerships should go out of business then. How else are they supposed to rip off customers to feed their families?

      Wait..... on second thought that sounds like a good idea. In fact I had the same thought as you. It makes so much sense yet they simply won't implement it.

    80. Re:How about NEW cars? by Puls4r · · Score: 1

      You information about collisions is correct, however it is in NO way dependent on Tesla to make first responders aware. There are many hybrid vehicles now on the market that have large capacity batteries installed. Pretty much every car maker has one, if not many models. Responders need to be trained, but that isn't a responsibility you can realistically lay at Tesla's feet.

    81. Re:How about NEW cars? by lgw · · Score: 3, Funny

      Yes, Prius knows the secret of NIMH, which is why they can develop up to 300 mousepower.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    82. Re:How about NEW cars? by war4peace · · Score: 1

      It really depends from which point of view you're looking. If you drive at 100 mph and see an incoming object, you slam the breaks and maybe you're only driving at about 30 mph when you hit it. What counts is the speed at the time of impact, so in this case I'd say that 70 mph is a very high impact speed by any standards.

      If you're talking about 70 mph regular driving speed, yeah, that's average. however, a 70 mph impact speed is pretty darn high IMO.

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    83. Re:How about NEW cars? by AaronW · · Score: 1

      Yep. My '06 Prius does a whopping 0 to 60 someday. I think I need to feed my hamster some better nuts.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    84. Re:How about NEW cars? by luther349 · · Score: 1

      dodge used to list codes with 3 turns of the key. long before lcd panels there was just more profit selling you code readers.

    85. Re:How about NEW cars? by nblender · · Score: 1

      Define "intentional"... I have a friend who wired up a bunch of crap in his truck and he did so by purchasing a spool of 14ga wire, Blue. Everything was blue wire; auxilliary power outlets, stereo, speakers, ham radio, driving lights, offroad lights, etc ... His truck was named "Zippy".. After the second engine compartment fire, we renamed it "Zippo". He jokes about selling it. "Comes with fire extinguisher (only used twice)."

    86. Re:How about NEW cars? by luther349 · · Score: 1

      im impressed there ass a result of crashes and not thermal runaway.

    87. Re:How about NEW cars? by Flere+Imsaho · · Score: 3, Insightful

      His general point still stands.

      What would have to happened to a gasoline powered car if a "rusty three-pronged trailer hitch that was sticking up with the ball up in the air" had punctured the gas tank? Or possibly worse, a diesel tank. Nothing like going around a bend on a motorcycle and hitting a patch of diesel to make your day interesting.

      --
      It gripped her hand gently. 'Regret is for humans,' it said.
    88. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not Tesla's responsibility, but they could cement their position as trailblazer for electric cars by taking on at least some of the educational effort. It could also be used as a form of PR to show that the 3 instances of fires were exaggerated by improper first responders.

    89. Re: How about NEW cars? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I've wondered why they can't put the equivalent of a $25 ODBII scanner on, and show the codes in human readable terms on the LCD.

    90. Re:How about NEW cars? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      I haven't researched the ages or conditions of vehicles that have caught fire. But - there have been two high profile stories in recent months of limousines catching fire, one involving multiple deaths.

      I don't have a dog in this fight. But I know that cars do catch fire for a number of reasons. Often times, it's the vehicle owner's fault, because they never maintenance the damned things. Accidents happen, and often times the fire starts under the hood, at the battery, or somewhere in the electrical system. It's rather rare for gas tanks to be punctured, then explode, but that happens as well.

      I think statistics favor electric cars right now, but as Musk states, as they are driven more, statistics are going to change, and eventually, someone WILL die in an electric car fire.

      Musk is right - sensationalism in journalism is doing no one any favors.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    91. Re:How about NEW cars? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      To be fair, gasoline cars that "just... catch fire" are older cars with poor maintenance. A 1-year-old car is not going to have leaking gas lines or oil leaks.

      But comparing apples to apples, gasoline cars are not immune to catching fire after a collision either, and their gas tanks are much less protected than the Tesla's battery packs. Better statistics would compare cars 1-year-old or less to Teslas.

    92. Re: How about NEW cars? by peragrin · · Score: 1

      the manufacturers don't even need to do that. they need probably $5 in wiring/ chips, and a one time design fee for programming of the LCD display tech.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    93. Re:How about NEW cars? by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      The day that local automotive parts stores start offering bolt-on accessories that promise increased horse power for your electric car, then we can compare electric to gas. Cars and motorcycles are routinely hacked and cobbled together, in the search for more speed, faster takeoff, and/or increased fuel mileage. In all fairness, a lot of vehicle fires and other accidents are caused by such vehicles and the types of people who butcher otherwise safe vehicles.

      Motorcycles especially are often purchased brand new, taken straight to a garage, and modifications made before they are even licensed and put on the road. That includes such simple mods as removing the stock exhaust from a Harley Davidson, to put straight through pipes on it, for that booming thumping sound that Harley lovers live for.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    94. Re:How about NEW cars? by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Are you sure about that? Other automakers have been talking for over a decade now about switching to a higher-voltage bus, because there's so many accessories in cars these days, and some of them use a lot of power (electric power steering for one). The Tesla is worse: it not only has EPS, but electric HVAC, in addition to things like window motors. A higher-voltage (42V) would allow the use of narrower-gauge wiring, saving vehicle weight. Normal cars haven't gone this way for various reasons, but the Tesla could do it easily since they already have a high-voltage battery pack, and converting to 42V wouldn't be any harder than converting to 14.4V. The main reason they probably wouldn't is because they can use off-the-shelf parts by sticking with 12V stuff.

    95. Re: How about NEW cars? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      I realize that, that's why I said the "equivalent" of a scanner. Mostly I pointed out that the technology for us, at retail, to read out these codes is pretty much dirt cheap (they're actually under $20 I see)... and the equipment that generates the codes is obviously already in the car.

    96. Re:How about NEW cars? by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      In most of the US, above 70MPH is illegal on absolutely any road, by state or federal law. Some states go up to 80, but most set the limit at 65 (which I believe is due to federal "incentives", though I could be very wrong there). Also, most of our cars are electronically limited far below 155MPH. My Pontiac is limited to 105...

    97. Re:How about NEW cars? by Urza9814 · · Score: 1

      So "maximum" is not "high"?

      Most people would consider freeways to be "high speed".

    98. Re: How about NEW cars? by edibobb · · Score: 1

      You have a Subaru!

    99. Re:How about NEW cars? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      ...but obviously, if an accident punctures a battery there's a chance of fire just as there is one if you puncture a gas tank.

      How likely is one to puncture the gas tank though, and how much risk of fire is there if the gas tank is ruptured, compared to if a battery is ruptured?

      Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of electric vehicles and have mulled doing a conversion on my quarter-ton pickup, but I don't like the idea of high-centering on a foreign object causing a fire.

      The risk of a fire from a ruptured petrol tank is actually quite low.

      You need a source of ignition as petrol wont auto ignite until 280 deg C. I live in a place where tarmac is exposed to 40 Degrees C heat and petrol will not ignite if poured onto that.

      The key difference is that inside a petrol tank there is no chemical reaction, however inside a Li battery there is. So a rupture to a fuel tank and a rupture to a battery are two very different risks.

      I, also am not against the idea of EV's but a battery is no analogous to a fuel tank in terms of risk and should be treated differently by designers because of this. A rupture to a fuel tank is a low risk as your biggest problem with be running out of petrol before the user notices the leak, however a ruptured battery has a more significant risk of ignition.

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    100. Re:How about NEW cars? by Petfish · · Score: 0

      70 MPH is faster than you are permitted to travel on any road in Australia, under any circumstances. It is high speed by that definition.

    101. Re: How about NEW cars? by JonBoy47 · · Score: 1

      In Chrysler's defense, the Clean Air Act mandated the standardized OBD2 interface, which can pass much more information than the key in ignition flash the light trick.

    102. Re:How about NEW cars? by samwichse · · Score: 1

      Except the object it collided with isn't moving at all, it's sitting still and is wedged between the unmoving earth and the 2108 kg car that is actually moving at 31 m/s.

      Or about 600 times the muzzle energy of a .44 magnum load according to your numbers.

    103. Re:How about NEW cars? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Hey, my '13 has plenty of oomph.

      When the gas engine is running :P

      I'll have to look again at what it says about the batteries. I know I was suprised, and I'm fairly certain it was nicad instead of hydride. I could be misremembering, though.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    104. Re: How about NEW cars? by JonBoy47 · · Score: 1

      42v never really took off. The reliability of the battery (more cells in series) suffers. Under hood connectors, relays and switchgear also take a reliability hit from increased arcing at the higher voltage. The voltage is high enough they were working on a standardized connector for jump starting too.

    105. Re: How about NEW cars? by luther349 · · Score: 1

      be supposed how much info ob1 one would give you.

    106. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      how much risk of fire is there if the gas tank is ruptured, compared to if a battery is ruptured?

      Battery Ruptured, 100% chance of fire.
      Gas tank ruptured less than 100% change of fire.

      Bullshit. Show me ONE example of a car which hit something at highway speeds, resulting in a punctured gas tank, which has NOT led to a fire.
      And more to the point, show me one where the fire was contained in the vehicle, as opposed to lighting up half the damn road.

      I'm really not much a fan of the electrics myself, I won't be putting my foot down on the "pussy pedal" any time soon. But Musk has a very valid point- if anything the fires have simply shown that the containment systems in the Tesla are FAR superior to any fire mitigation system in a combustion engine vehicle.

    107. Re:How about NEW cars? by Common+Joe · · Score: 1

      Anecdotal Story: About two or three years ago, I was driving along the Interstate and saw white smoke coming from a vehicle on the side of the road. I pulled over, grabbed my fire extinguisher (I always keep one in the car) and tried to put it out. It didn't work. The 1970 Chevy went up in flames. No one was in the car, so no one was hurt but the guy was just driving it back from the service dealer. It was hard watching a man that I didn't know at all cry. By the time the fire truck showed up, parts of the car were dripping onto the ground and giant yellow flames with thick, black smoke were billowing in the air. That car was real nice looking too. Hell, I wanted to cry.

    108. Re:How about NEW cars? by AaronW · · Score: 1

      Wikipedia is your friend. My '06 is OK for normal driving, 0-60 in "around 10 seconds" but it is pretty anemic at highway speeds. It can also be rather painful going up long uphill grades. I have drained the battery completely (down to 40%) and the lack of power is extremely noticeable. I've only driven my Prius a couple of times since I got a Tesla model S last March and I plan to sell it next week.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    109. Re: How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Apart from the fact that the freeway speed limit in NT is 130 km/h, the national (federal) highway way speed limit is 110km/h, which is 68mph.

    110. Re:How about NEW cars? by Teancum · · Score: 1

      The distinction of interstate highway speeds is a matter of the quality of the roadbed, surface material, average traffic density (which shows up in rural vs. urban highways), and some other well established industry standards to determine the freeways speeds. Most urban highways are usually at 65 mph because of the overall traffic density and the fact that access ramps occur more frequently (hence more things that a driver needs to watch for when traveling at higher speeds).

      The Autobahn in Germany is built to a higher standard of roadbed and surface material, which is partly why you can drive at higher speeds in Germany than you can on comparable highways in America (where roadbeds are thinner in part to make highway construction cheaper). It also doesn't hurt that drivers in Germany are better trained than drivers in America (literally.... the licensing requirements alone to drive in Germany are much tougher than a comparable American driver's license exam and training program).

      The 65 mph speed limit standard was something that used to be in federal code, but enough states rebelled (especially western states like Wyoming and Montana) that speed limits are now strictly a state highway department issue alone. There are federal standards based upon engineering tests and federal highway standards... including 50-state compacts that get around constitutional issues too so it gets to be a sort of mess on the legal side, but the federal level U.S. Department of Transportation no longer sets absolute speed limits like was done in the 1970's and 1980's.

    111. Re:How about NEW cars? by TWX · · Score: 1

      The temps that can lead to fires are from wheel bearings, brakes, and the exhaust piping, all of which route right there near the fuel tank.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    112. Re:How about NEW cars? by Quila · · Score: 1

      It would be that much energy if it actually stopped the car. But good point, wedged into the ground.

      Whatever it is, it's a hell of a lot of energy, more than enough to pierce a regular car's gas tank.

    113. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure, maybe there's a 'hypothesis' that the puncture wasn't needed, but that 'hypothesis' isn't needed to explain what happened in any of these incidents.

    114. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You watch too much TV. Puncturing a gas tank does not automatically cause the car to cast Level 10 Fireball on itself.

    115. Re:How about NEW cars? by missneht · · Score: 1

      Definitely, I have seen gasoline engine cars catch on fire for no apparent reason, they also sometimes have electrical fires. More importantly gasoline engine cars do not give you a warning with enough time to park safely and get out before the fire becomes apparent as the Tesla does. If I ever am in a car that catches fire I would very much prefer that it happen in a Tesla.

    116. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      AAArgh, hard to hold back progress

    117. Re:How about NEW cars? by suutar · · Score: 1

      by overcharging for parts and padding service times, of course. Enough people will go to the dealer to get work done even if they know what the code means.

    118. Re:How about NEW cars? by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      How likely is one to puncture the gas tank though, and how much risk of fire is there if the gas tank is ruptured, compared to if a battery is ruptured?
      Don't get me wrong, I really like the idea of electric vehicles and have mulled doing a conversion on my quarter-ton pickup, but I don't like the idea of high-centering on a foreign object causing a fire.

      It's probably about the same, maybe even less. Gasoline is extremely dangerous. It doesn't light off if just punctured, but the vapor from the leak can go down wind a ways and light off from any spark or open flame. Even static sparks can set it off. And if the concentration is just right it can explode like a bomb (not the liquid, but the vapor). See "fuel-air bomb".
      The Navy bans use of gasoline on any small boat, all their small boats on the ships are diesel.

    119. Re:How about NEW cars? by wolja · · Score: 1

      How many ran over heavy, jagged pieces of metal at highway speeds?

      Probably a few given how the Petrol, gas for you foreigners, tank is usually less protected than the battery would be.

      Reminds me of the hysteria paraded by the manufacturers / vested interests about how unsafe LPG, dunno what the yanks call Liquefied Petroleum Gas, was when it came out.

      Vested interest screams loudly about the things it hasn't bought into yet.

      --
      Wolja Future Tombstone: Shit happened then I died
    120. Re:How about NEW cars? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      I assume you tried in in PWR mode?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    121. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Definitely, I have seen gasoline engine cars catch on fire for no apparent reason, they also sometimes have electrical fires. More importantly gasoline engine cars do not give you a warning with enough time to park safely and get out before the fire becomes apparent as the Tesla does. If I ever am in a car that catches fire I would very much prefer that it happen in a Tesla.

    122. Re:How about NEW cars? by Saethan · · Score: 1

      Better statistics would compare cars 1-year-old or less, in the same price range, to Teslas.

      FTFY

    123. Re: How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My diesel f350 does 0-60 in 10 seconds with 3 priuses in tow.

    124. Re: How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ran over a trailer hitch in my f350...with a 1ft lift. Didn't even hit my truck.

    125. Re:How about NEW cars? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference is that fuel must be mixed with air before it will burn. Batteries contain both reagents inside their enclosure, so catastrophic battery fires can occur inside--it is not necessary for the contents to escape. Tesla's record has been very good, because of careful selection of battery technology, battery management and protection. I'm a particular fan of EVs, as I don't carefor high priced status symbols, but I do give them credit for doing good work. That's why they are a rare boutique car manufacturer whose long-term prospects are encouraging. Most cut corners in design and build, and suffer the consequences of making their customers unhappy.

    126. Re: How about NEW cars? by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Yea, and how many gallons does it consume per mile?

      I get 44 mpg* with my prius. I still spend $300/m on gas, but if I didn't have a prius I'd be spending over $600.

      * - not reported by the car, though it does happen to say close to that. calculated from gas receipts over time and my odometer

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
  2. first commenter gets a free Tesla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    ... because they need better testing, clearly.

    1. Re:first commenter gets a free Tesla? by somersault · · Score: 1

      If you mean that clearly you haven't read the summary of this or any of the other Tesla stories, then yes it's clear.

      --
      which is totally what she said
  3. People are bad by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    People are really bad at understanding statistics.

    The masses will believe that electric cars are dangerously subject to spontaneous burning as a result of this press coverage, despite the extraordinarily solid safety record of the Tesla cars.

    This is (to me) substantially similar to those people who frequently call violent crime a "growing problem" and probably comes from the same lazy, sensationalist reporters.

    1. Re:People are bad by Sarten-X · · Score: 5, Funny

      Violent crime is a growing problem.

      The perpetrators often have had problems growing to maturity as members of civilized society.

      --
      You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
    2. Re:People are bad by janeuner · · Score: 4, Informative

      Also people don't seek principle sources. An account from the owner of the third Tesla fire incident.

      http://www.teslamotors.com/blog/model-s-owner-tennessee (I think this was on slashdot a couple weeks ago...)

      "This experience does not in any way make me think that the Tesla Model S is an unsafe car. I would buy another one in a heartbeat."

      I expect that the current NHTSA probe is going to end up a huge win for Tesla and Musk.

    3. Re:People are bad by brxndxn · · Score: 5, Insightful

      People are really bad at understanding statistics because the Mainstream Media purposely skews reporting to maintain current power structures. If the media did a halfway accurate job of reporting how well the Teslas perform compared to traditional cars, you would have a ton of lawmakers, lobbyists, power brokers, and other old-money individuals all 'making phone calls' to get those involved removed. Real journalism has died. Instead, we have 'mainstream journalism' and 'fringe journalism.' The truth is found more often in fringe journalism.

      It's just like watching an NFL game on TV and trying to figure out who the announcers are rooting for.. Guess what? They're rooting for a close game and whatever team has the momentum. If Tesla gains enough 'momentum' and mainstream acceptance (industry is large enough to gain its own power brokers), you will start seeing sensational articles about how great the Tesla is.

      --
      --- We need more Ron Paul!
    4. Re: People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As others on other news sites have pointed out, Elton's statistics are really bad. Car fires tend to happen in about 1% of auto accidents, while in the Tesla Model S, it has happened in 3/20.

      For investors trying to bank on the Tesla stock bubble, this is a very real concern given what happened to Fisker over battery fires.

    5. Re: People are bad by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As others on other news sites have pointed out, Elton's statistics are really bad. Car fires tend to happen in about 1% of auto accidents, while in the Tesla Model S, it has happened in 3/20.

      For investors trying to bank on the Tesla stock bubble, this is a very real concern given what happened to Fisker over battery fires.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    6. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The victims often have even more problems growing to maturity.

    7. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The media is in the business of manipulating facts.

    8. Re:People are bad by geekoid · · Score: 1

      A common person biased emotional driven narrative is worth nothing.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:People are bad by geekoid · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Wrong. Violent crimes has been decreasing for decades.
      Stop yammering on with the fear the media shoves down your throat.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:People are bad by sl4shd0rk · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People are really bad at understanding statistics.

      You give them too much credit. A good portion of the population _chooses_ ignorance over logical and rational conclusions. The only explanation is that when it comes to educating oneself, many people say it's "too hard" which basically equates to "I don't f#cking feel like it". (other factors, such as blind fundamentalism, is another matter)

      --
      Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
    11. Re:People are bad by Andy+Dodd · · Score: 2

      Based on that account, the change Tesla SHOULD be making is to be MUCH firmer about the warnings in the case of battery damage. The fire was not in any way sudden - the car was bitching at the driver for *5 minutes* before he pulled over, calmly collected his belongings, and walked away...

      (Although, without possibly some extra integrity checking circuitry such as a wire mesh through the battery case, it might not be easy to distinguish battery puncture from other failure modes.)

      --
      retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
    12. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Does "whoooooooosh" also apply to a missed play on words?

    13. Re:People are bad by maugle · · Score: 1

      Worth nothing to statistics, sure. But when it comes to people's purchasing habits, emotion is huge.

    14. Re:People are bad by Jeremi · · Score: 2

      If Tesla gains enough 'momentum' and mainstream acceptance (industry is large enough to gain its own power brokers), you will start seeing sensational articles about how great the Tesla is.

      I hate to ruin a beautiful theory with facts, but we've already seen plenty of sensational articles about how great the Tesla is.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    15. Re:People are bad by abigsmurf · · Score: 1

      You don't understand the stats either.

      Musk is comparing a population of new, low milage , well maintained cars driven short distances by caring owners to the general population of cars including 10 year old 80,000 mile rustbuckets driven by teens who haven't had it serviced in years.

      If you are not comparing like for like, you cannot draw any sort of reliable conclusion from your stats

    16. Re:People are bad by Blake1024 · · Score: 1

      Remember, the news services are not in the business of providing news. They are in the business of making a profit. They make money by getting people to read their advertisements. They print what further's that cause. (A disclaimer: I am a rabid capitalist. I am not complaining about this situation. It could not be different. I am merely pointing it out.)

    17. Re: People are bad by jasenj1 · · Score: 1

      That's an interesting statistic.

      If you get in an accident in a gas powered car the likelihood of it catching fire (and presumably doing extensive damage to the vehicle) is low. But in the Tesla the chances of your car burning up are much higher?

      But that assumes the amount of damage caused by a fire is catastrophic. Now we need stats on how much damage is done by fires to know how bad catching fire really is.

      - Jasen.

    18. Re:People are bad by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      Woosh. That was a pun, and you missed it completely.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    19. Re:People are bad by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We need a karma-neutral "whoosh" modifier for when the responder to a joke is about 5 steps behind on the discussion thread....

    20. Re: People are bad by Splab · · Score: 1

      Also, you need to adjust for speed of collision. Since there are a lot more gasoline powered cars on the road, chances are they are way more represented in low speed accidents, which most likely has lower chance of causing fire.

    21. Re:People are bad by jalopezp · · Score: 2

      I am pretty sure the gp was being coy.

    22. Re:People are bad by T.E.D. · · Score: 1

      This is (to me) substantially similar to those people who frequently call violent crime a "growing problem" and probably comes from the same lazy, sensationalist reporters.

      That's actually a matter of reporters reusing stories and bits of stories completely unchanged from the 80's, when it was a growing problem. Thirty years of writing the same story over and over again. That's a whole different level of lazy.

    23. Re:People are bad by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Every single night I see murders and stabbings on TV news, and you are citing WIKIPEDIA to "prove" otherwise? You sound like a fucking retarded gun control advocate trying to convince me to give up my primary source of personal protection.

      And you've just proved you fall for the sensationalist media like Musk is talking about.

      You probably didn't even look at the first paragraph of the Wikipedia page where it clearly states the numbers are pulled from FBI and BJS reports, both government sources that you can go for primary data if you think Wikipedia is fudging the numbers. You also didn't look at the graphs in the articles, nor the data sources behind the graphs, as there is a clear downward trend in most violent crimes. Wikipedia may be untrustworthy, but there are citations and those can be verified.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    24. Re:People are bad by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      I believe they have thermal sensors in there - perhaps more than just "BATTERY HOT" could be in order - maybe some thermistors designed to register fire temperatures, and something to make the detection of such a bit more obvious. Example, in an A-10 aircraft those fire extinguisher handles along the top light up like Christmas trees. Airliners have similar features as well - why not a car?

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    25. Re:People are bad by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      People are really bad at understanding statistics because the Mainstream Media purposely skews reporting to maximize ratings.

      FTFY

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    26. Re:People are bad by Guspaz · · Score: 1

      It doesn't really matter what caused the failure; the sensors are telling the car that the temperature in the battery is rising slowly but uncontrollably, and that the driver needs to get out ASAP... the cause is not relevant to the driver at that point.

    27. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you look at the entire US, yes, it decreased. If you instead focus on the fact that nobody lives in "the entire US", then some places do have a growing problem. Oakland, CA. Detroit. San Jose, CA (even though they are still one of the safest cities, their rates have been climbing). There are a lot of other places where it has been declining. But looking at it from an "entire US" view isn't relevant since nobody lives in that city.

    28. Re:People are bad by sjames · · Score: 1

      If TV is any guide, then the leading problems are gremlins fed after midnight, poltergeists, Godzilla, and sharknados. There might also be a growing problem with snakes on a plane.

      In an entire country with 300 million people in it, it's not hard to find one or two bad things to talk about endlessly on the News. That's just statistics.

    29. Re:People are bad by JWW · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If the investigation is brought on by 3 fires in 5 weeks. Then this testimonial from one of the people who's Model S caught fire, represents the fact that 33% of the people who's cars caught fire do not think the fire was dangerous or a big deal and would purchase another Model S again.

      That is, in fact, for this small sample size, statistically valuable.

    30. Re:People are bad by gmclapp · · Score: 1

      You just implied that TV news is a more reliable source of information than Wikipedia. While Wikipedia has its drawbacks, it is not commonly sensationalized for entertainment value. I also carry and am an advocate of protecting the second amendment. But, people like you hurt the cause more than you help it.

      --
      Common Sense (+1)
    31. Re:People are bad by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Go read some of the old time newspapers, this isn't a new phenomenon. There has never been 'real journalism'. Human nature is just like this. "No lions for the last five minutes" doesn't get our attention but "Lion in the area!" does. "news" funded by advertising sells our attention, so it always tends towards the angle that will gain attention.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    32. Re:People are bad by CycleMan · · Score: 2

      Yes, people often choose ignorance. But most of the time, most people do so rationally. Does each of us know who won each college football game this past weekend, and which players contributed what to the results? We could ... but odds are, many of us "don't feel like it," and are therefore ignorant about who's up or down in the BCS standings.

      If you want to talk about the educated populace, scientists often choose to stick with what they know or believe, as documented in Thomas Kuhn's "Theory of Scientific Revolutions," which noted that sometimes new scientific theories could not come into prominence until the highly-entrenched supporters of the old theories had died out. For scientists looking at competing theories in their field, this should be inexcusable. But educating oneself can be highly time-consuming and costly.

      For the average Joe, keeping up on all the options, facts and alternatives for all the possible opinions they could hold would easily be several full-time jobs, and that presumes they have the scientific training to read between the lines on the write-ups of medical studies and identify whether the experiments had hidden biases or poor controls that might skew the results. Or they can just keep their "ignorant" beliefs about things which don't matter too much to them on a daily basis and focus their education and attention on the things that matter to them. If fingers are pointed anywhere, Elon Musk is right: they should point at the journalists who are paid to research and write about these things so that they can inform us accurately.

      Given a limited amount of time in my day, I'm not going to be researching car accident rates, adjusting for the age/reliability of the technologies chosen, the skill of the driver, the road conditions, the vehicle age/reliability, etc. I already have to research and decide where to invest my savings, research and decide the best route home after a long day at the office, and choose which of 70 cereals (let alone other breakfast products) to pick up at the store.

    33. Re:People are bad by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      You don't understand the stats either.

      Musk is comparing a population of new, low milage , well maintained cars driven short distances by caring owners to the general population of cars including 10 year old 80,000 mile rustbuckets driven by teens who haven't had it serviced in years.

      Precisely - it's an apples-to-oranges comparison.

      If Musk wasn't so keen on trying to use intellectual dishonesty and general ignorance to his advantage, he wouldn't have said anything, since there's a very strong chance that no other single 2014 model of automobile is seeing 15% of their production line burning up once they hit the roads.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    34. Re:People are bad by imikem · · Score: 1

      And??? The trend being downward nationwide means that violent crime is decreasing in more places and/or at higher rates than increasing. That would be the definition of "average" changes. No people don't live in the "entire US" and neither do they drive "every car." What the fuck are you even saying? If this was satire or trolling, well-done.

      --
      Perscriptio in manibus tabellariorum est.
    35. Re:People are bad by CycleMan · · Score: 1

      They make money by getting people to read their advertisements. ... It could not be different.

      It could be different, but it would require us to pay the news services ourselves instead of asking someone else to do it. In business, the golden rule is "He who has the gold makes the rules." As a result, I get better (my subjective judgment) news from public radio and public television, because they don't need to drag out minimal news across four commercial breaks but can instead present more thoughtful in-depth material about things other than celebrities and tragedies.

    36. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, no, no. Your primary source of personal protection is your FEET. As in, if you fear for your life, get the fuck out of where you are. Unless you go around brandishing your weapon to everyone who rustles your feathers, I seriously doubt that your handgun is your primary source of protection.

    37. Re:People are bad by Blake1024 · · Score: 1

      Yes, it would work if we paid for the news, and we were the only payers, and we payed based on quality but that would never work because the cost of producing the news far outweighs what people think it is worth or are able to pay. You don't get better news from public sources either. Don't be fooled. They get public money based on numbers of listeners, viewers, readers, etc.. The masses aren't rich. They must appeal to the masses in order to get the numbers. This causes them to jump on the class envy thing. They would never tell their readers to go get a job.... This is why most news services are far left.

    38. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a joke son. Ya missed it. Flew right over your head. You gotta keep your eye on the ball. Eye! Ball! I almost had a gag, son. Joke, that is.

    39. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not a masses thing, this is a human nature thing.

      A few months ago I went snorkeling with leopard sharks off the coast of San Diego. I'll admit I was extremely nervous the first time I did it, and this being my third time it was only a bit better. This despite the fact that there were 75 shark attacks throughout the entire world in 2011, only 12 of which were fatal. And leopard sharks don't attack humans; their teeth are too small to do anything at all and they eat jellyfish anyways, not mammals or fish!

      I also drove 500 miles that month on Southern California freeways! I'll admit, I texted when i did it. In 2011 there were 29,757 fatalities in car crashes in just the United States, 16,430 it was the driver who died. Didn't bother me in the slightest.

      In fact, even knowing these statistics, it still doesn't bother me (which kind of bothers me). Human nature is not the best at assessing danger to itself, because a lot of the fear comes from things that we don't know about. I know driving, despite the dangers (partially my poor driving), I've been doing it for years and years; it's second nature now. Swimming with sharks, well I can only see so far into the depths and I'm not nearly as fast; there's too little I know about what's around me, and that's where the danger sense kicks in.

      Same thing here. People don't know about it, so they're curious and a bit afraid of the technology, and the media is willing to capitalize on that fear for a sensational headline that will sell ad revenue. That's all this is.

    40. Re:People are bad by bitt3n · · Score: 1

      People are really bad at understanding statistics.

      The masses will believe that electric cars are dangerously subject to spontaneous burning as a result of this press coverage, despite the extraordinarily solid safety record of the Tesla cars.

      This is (to me) substantially similar to those people who frequently call violent crime a "growing problem" and probably comes from the same lazy, sensationalist reporters.

      I understand statistics perfectly well. Three out of three stories I've read about car explosions have involved Teslas. That's a 100% detonation rate! Who runs this company, Al Qaeda?

    41. Re:People are bad by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      That reminds me of those stop smoking commercials. The one where they say cigarettes contain methane also found in dog poop.... It always makes me giggle because the people that use that argument also pay to have way more methane than in a pack cigarettes pumped into their houses to cook on, heat their water, and heat their homes every day.

    42. Re:People are bad by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 2

      To be fair, TWO of those three people are on record saying they would buy again and don't think the fire was a big deal, given the type of impact.

    43. Re:People are bad by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 1

      Sorry, what does home heating have to do with cigarette smoking?

      Analogy....

      I claim eating cyanide is bad for you.

      You counter by saying that cyanide is in the wood people use to make backyard decks and the they have dinner there...

      Ha!!!

      Still confused.

    44. Re: People are bad by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 2

      Since there are a lot more gasoline powered cars on the road, chances are they are way more represented in low speed accidents

      That's not how statistics works....

    45. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your conceptions of what is or is not "sensational" is hardly fact.

      Once again, a yokel who parrots the "ruin your story with facts" line is wrong.

    46. Re:People are bad by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 1

      15%?

      The Tesla Model S is the single highest selling luxury sedan in the US, beating out the Mersedez Benz S-Class.

      It's fair to say that electric cars will be destroyed by fire at a slightly higher rate than brand new gasoline cars, but they are subject to destruction by other means less often.

      The fires are contained and, as stated, were sufficiently contained to avoid burning the paper in the glove compartment, and the cabin suffered exactly zero damage, due to the well designed firewalls.

      All I have to say is MEH.

    47. Re:People are bad by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 1

      That would be "HIGH END" luxury cars (Over $80k), FYI.

    48. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Most people remember the Chevy Corvair for it's habit of rolling over during hard cornering. It doesn't matter that GM had no reported incidents of roll overs until they fitted the cars with bucket seats and people began driving them at higher speeds like Porches. It doesn't matter that they updated the rear suspension in 1964 and completely redesigned it for the 1965-69 models. It doesn't matter that people failing to read the manual and improper tire inflation was actually the main cause of the jacking effect noted in the 1960-63 models. It doesn't matter that Ralph Nader actually mentions all of this in his book and calls the '65's a much better design. It doesn't matter that the 1971 NHTSA report found both early and late models to be no less dangerous than other contemporary cars and that the VW microbus and Beetle and Renault Dauphine actually did roll over during the tests where as the Corvair didn't.

      But no. Here we are almost 50 years later and people STILL believe that ALL Corvairs are unsafe and will flip shiny-side-down at the slightest mention of a corner. Certain vehicles get a reputation for something and that's it. The name might as well be dead. I doubt Ford would dare use the "Pinto" name on another small car just like GM wouldn't bring back the Vega name even if the car was powered by a proven Ecotec engine.

    49. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      People are really bad at understanding statistics.

      According to his own figures, Tesla suffers an average of one fire per 6,333 cars, versus a rate of one fire per 1,350 gasoline-powered cars.

      I'd say Elon is bad at statistics too. Or at least just misleading. Fires per car is a terrible statistic.

      Let's see him compare statistics for 'fires per mile' for all petro-fueled vehicles VS Tesla.

    50. Re:People are bad by rsborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If Musk wasn't so keen on trying to use intellectual dishonesty and general ignorance to his advantage, he wouldn't have said anything, since there's a very strong chance that no other single 2014 model of automobile is seeing 15% of their production line burning up once they hit the roads.

      And speaking of intellectual dishonesty when complaining about other's abuse of statistics, it's best not to commit abuse on your own part.

      --
      Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
    51. Re: People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the most recent incident, the driver was able to keep driving for 5 minutes and suffered no burns himself.

      How many gasoline fires fit that profile?

    52. Re:People are bad by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      They were saying methane is disgusting because it's in dog poop and I was pointing out that many people cook on methane.

    53. Re:People are bad by afidel · · Score: 2

      And the third who drove through a brick wall at high speed and walked away is doubtlessly also impressed by the cars safety features!

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    54. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not the media's fault, it's our foolish math curriculum. Statistics should be taught to high school students as part of the required curriculum. Geometry, trigonometry and calculus are important mathematical subjects, but one of those (likely calculus) can be learned in college by those who are continuing on to fields that require that knowledge. The people who stop their educations after high school would be better served knowing statistics than any of those subjects and our society would be better off if they had a better understanding, albeit with less money for schools from the various lotteries.

    55. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Tesla Model S is the single highest selling luxury sedan in the US, beating out the Mersedez Benz S-Class.

      The Tesla isn't a luxury sedan.

    56. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quite opposite. Very few one year old cars are catching fire. The quoted 250000 are fires in old poorly maintained clunkers or vehicles involved in extremely severe accidents where big part of the structure is completely destroyed. Coincidentally how many Volts caught fire due to encounter with a road trash ?

    57. Re:People are bad by cusco · · Score: 4, Funny

      Can you hear the growing 'Woosh'?

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    58. Re:People are bad by Idarubicin · · Score: 1

      .If Musk wasn't so keen on trying to use intellectual dishonesty and general ignorance to his advantage, he wouldn't have said anything, since there's a very strong chance that no other single 2014 model of automobile is seeing 15% of their production line burning up once they hit the roads.

      Erm--where did you get that figure? The article cites a rate of 1 fire per 6333 vehicles: 0.016%.

      Would you say that you were showing off your intellectual dishonesty, or your general ignorance?

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    59. Re: People are bad by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      ...while in the Tesla Model S, it has happened in 3/20.

      This (20) is not a statistically significant number. Don't complain about others bad use of statistics and then do the same thing yourself.

    60. Re:People are bad by afidel · · Score: 1

      It wasn't cyanide in decking, it was arsenic, and it hasn't been allowed in most applications since 2004.

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    61. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont back down. I dont call 911. I have these FACTS posted clearly in every entrance to my house. Anyone who enters unauthorized is forfeiting their life by their OWN volition.

    62. Re:People are bad by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      The masses will believe that electric cars are dangerously subject to spontaneous burning

      As they say, "a fool and his money soon go separate ways" - although I tend to find that money and brains are seldom related, I'm tempted to think that those dumb and gullible enough to [form their worldview and sense of reality from media sources] would be unlikely to have retained any of their wealth long enough to be in a position to contemplate purchasong a Model S... :p

    63. Re:People are bad by pr0fessor · · Score: 1

      Oh and since methane is nontoxic {although you can can drown in it just like water} a better analogy would be...

      Water is disgusting because it is in dog poop. {and it is}

      I counter by saying but you cook with water every day. {and you do}

    64. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like someone who pretends to be a 2nd supporter but actually isn't. How much does the brady campaign pay you to hang around here to harass us?

    65. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dont back down.

      Yes you do, and everyone can tell.

    66. Re: People are bad by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Car fires tend to happen in about 1% of auto accidents

      1) Fender benders count as accidents. It seems you need to take the severity of the accident into account.

      2) Gasoline engines spontaneously combust, or catch fire long after an accident, which would not be attributed to the number you pulled out of your ass anyway. That bumps the instances of car fires to a significantly higher number.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    67. Re:People are bad by CanHasDIY · · Score: 0

      Erm--where did you get that figure?

      Right out of my ass, like everyone else claiming factual statements with no empirical data to back them - Elon Musk included. Except I never claimed my statement was factual.

      Musk is using the figures he came up with that makes his company look better; it's pretty run-of-the-mill in terms of bullshit.

      Instead of taking his word as gospel, do your own research:

      - How many Tesla Model S vehicles are on the road? Of of that number, how many have caught fire? Next divide the second number by the first to get the percentage of Tesla Model S vehicles that have caught fire. Finally, ask the same question of any other vehicle that started production in 2012.

      To wit:

      Per Wikipedia, somewhere around 18,200 Model S' have been sold since 2012; 3-4 of them have caught on fire.

      Ford sold over 250,000 Fusions in 2013 alone, and if you can find a figure for how many of those caught on fire, I'd bet dollars to pesos that the percentage will be far lower than that of the Model S.

      If you can't see how comparing stats for a car that's sold less than 20,000 units in a 2 year period with every single gas-powered automobile, ever, is intellectually dishonest, I don't think I can do much to help you.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    68. Re:People are bad by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      15% of their production line burning up once they hit the roads

      Right, because only 20 of those cars have ever been produced.

      Well we know one person who is being intellectually dishonest, as least.

    69. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What a wonderful country you live in.

    70. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crying shill is a sign that you know you're losing the argument.

    71. Re:People are bad by cusco · · Score: 1

      They would never tell their readers to go get a job.

      Huh? Public radio and TV views tend to be above average in income and education. Rush Limbaugh's audience is the opposite, and I've never heard him tell his audience to "go get a job" either.

      --
      "Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
    72. Re:People are bad by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Yea, so I fucked up my math. Honest mistake, happens to me a lot.

      Unlike a certain somebody, who throws bullshit figures out on purpose, hoping that fanboyism will trump reason and that no one with better math skill will take the time to point out that while, in 2 years, 1 in every 6,067 cars he sells catches fire, almost 100 Ford Fusions (or any other model that sells a quarter million units annually) would have to immolate every year to match the Model S' when it comes to 'percentage of the line that catches fire.'

      So, yea, intellectual dishonesty vs an honest mistake.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    73. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are really bad at understanding statistics.

      The masses will believe that electric cars are dangerously subject to spontaneous burning as a result of this press coverage, despite the extraordinarily solid safety record of the Tesla cars.

      This is (to me) substantially similar to those people who frequently call violent crime a "growing problem" and probably comes from the same lazy, sensationalist reporters.

      A Kardashian went outside today, and we know about it.

      Some pop star didn't give a fuck and smoked weed today, and we know about it.

      A dog shit on Oprah's lawn, and we know about it.

      It's not called sensationalist journalism anymore. It's just called journalism, and it's pretty much all equally shitty and pointless.

      Don't act so surprised. We all know who manipulates those who report the "news", so don't expect anything but bias when trillions are at stake. Start poking at those who profit at the rate of $2000/second, and you're bound to get some negative attention. Oil tycoons do not like it when you fuck with their profits, whether they're wearing a turban or a ten-gallon hat.

    74. Re:People are bad by CycleMan · · Score: 1

      PBS and NPR are not saints, but I think they are better than the alternatives I know of. This Old House has product placements, but they're far more realistic than Extreme Home Makeover. All commentators have biases, but The News Hour with Jim Lehrer and BBC News tell me something of what's going on in Washington and globally, while my local station seems to drool over an individual car crash or apartment fire.

      But you've piqued my curiosity: given the flaws in each of these, where/how do you get your news? Is it a scalable solution that I could start using? Ultimately I keep wanting to improve the signal-to-noise ratio of my information without subjecting myself to confirmation bias. Thanks in advance for your suggestions.

    75. Re:People are bad by sootman · · Score: 1

      > People are really bad at understanding statistics.

      Agree.

      On that note, how many of those gasoline fires and deaths were in sub-one-year-old cars?

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    76. Re:People are bad by umafuckit · · Score: 1

      People are really bad at understanding statistics because the Mainstream Media purposely skews reporting to maintain current power structures. If the media did a halfway accurate job of reporting how well the Teslas perform compared to traditional cars, you would have a ton of lawmakers, lobbyists, power brokers, and other old-money individuals all 'making phone calls' to get those involved removed.

      People are not bad at understanding statistics because of the mainstream media. Most people, including the mainstream media, do not understand statistics. The only thing they understand are viewing/circulation figures and ad revenues. As a result, we get all this badly researched and sensationalised bullshit, because that's what they think people want to watch. TV news in the US now resembles reality TV and there is fuck all intelligent debate and analysis.

      All of this appeals to something psychologists have realised to be true: that people weigh anecdote, particularly if it comes from people they know, much more highly than cold statistical facts. This is because people tend to make decisions based on emotion not logic. If they are attached to a particular view, giving them facts and statistics to the contrary will rarely change their minds. Colourful anecdotes and subtle peer pressure to conform are more successful.

    77. Re:People are bad by Blake1024 · · Score: 1

      There are educated and well off people on both sides of the isle. If you haven't heard Rush Limbaugh tell able people to "get a job" rather than collect off the government, you haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh.

    78. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are really bad at understanding statistics because everyone purposely skews them for their own agenda..

      FTFY.

      Or do you think Musk rambling on about gasoline fires and comparing ten to twenty year old vehicles to the brand new Tesla isn't spin? That comparing a microscopic number of cars with a suspicious number of fires to the millions upon millions of gasoline vehicles isn't spin? Ignoring fire details - protip, a large swath of fires are sourced in fuel line rot on older vehicles due to the eco-"friendly" shit that passes for gasoline these days - isn't spin?

      I don't blame Musk, mind you, because the media are acting like their usual twatwaffling selves. But if you think he's pulling numbers out of his ass out of pure benevolence and shitting out unblemished truth... I've got an electric bridge to sell you.

    79. Re:People are bad by jratcliffe · · Score: 1

      Yea, so I fucked up my math. Honest mistake, happens to me a lot.

      If being off by three entire orders of magnitude (3/20=15%, 3/20000=0.015%) constitutes an "honest mistake" that "happens to [you] a lot", how could you possibly function in any part of an industrialized society? Even Walmart cashiers who routinely give change in $1000 bills rather than $1 bills don't last long.

    80. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Tesla gains enough 'momentum' and mainstream acceptance (industry is large enough to gain its own power brokers), you will start seeing sensational articles about how great the Tesla is.

      I hate to ruin a beautiful theory with facts, but we've already seen plenty of sensational articles about how great the Tesla is.

      No one ever said Tesla was stupid enough to not join the song and dance that has enchanted millions and generated billions in profits.

      Of course you've seen sensational articles about how great Tesla is. That's because they want to sell more cars.

      It's kind of like when you see a new 2014 model being named "Car of the Year" a month before the new model hits the showroom floors. Only one reason to pay for such utter bullshit before you've even sold a single model.

      Musk is now throwing the proverbial gas on this fire, hoping the flames will gather even more attention. Oh, the irony...

    81. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are really bad at understanding statistics.

      Apparently like people not comparing the correct populations with each other. For example Musk's comparing his relatively new cars with every single motor vehicle on the road by using a statistic from a pamphlet made by the NFPA that doesn't have any background information attached to it.

    82. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was actually chromated copper (II) arsenate, which the link you provide points out. To wit, it's a bit like saying that rust is iron. Yes, technically, it contains the element Fe. However, it's not the pure elemental form that saying "iron" might suggest.

      Chromium compounds (especially hexavalent chromium compounds), copper compounds, arsenic compounds: all are generally nasty stuff. Giving arsenic all the blame is a bit unfair, yes?

    83. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I think that might have been satirical, though I admit it's hard to tell.

      Most of us know that violent crime (nationally) is down, and has been headed down for a long time. The funny part is that it's in the gun enthusiasts' best interest to acknowledge that, not only because it's true, but since violent crime did not rocket upward when the AWB sunset, as political FUD forecasted.

    84. Re:People are bad by Blake1024 · · Score: 0

      I can't listen to NPR in general. I'd find it hard to imagine someone more left than Terry Gross. The News Hour with Jim Lehrer is better and somewhat more fair but still left. The most balanced source of reliable news I know of is The Wall Street Journal. I want to write an article about the techniques the mainstream media uses. For example, when interviewing someone, they ask questions. If the respondent answers with a view that supports the right the interviewer ignores the answer and changes the subject. If the respondent answers with a view that supports the left the interviewer responds, engages, and asks the respondent to expound on their response. The exception to this is when the respondent is on the right and not that bright. The interviewer sees the flaw in the argument and drills it deep. They want to be sure everyone sees the stupidity of the respondent.

    85. Re:People are bad by triffid_98 · · Score: 1

      No other single 2014 model of automobile ASIDE from Ferrari.

      FTFY.

    86. Re:People are bad by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1
      It's worse than that. According to the "Topical Fire Report Series" from which we have to guess the slideshow that Musk referenced is based, the definition of a "highway vehicle" is pretty broad as quoted below:

      Highway vehicle fires include fires in passenger road vehicles (e.g., cars, motorcycles and off-road recreational vehicles), freight road transport vehicles (e.g., dump trucks, fire apparatus and tank trucks), and agricultural and construction vehicles.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    87. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      People are really bad at understanding statistics because the Mainstream Media purposely skews reporting to maintain current power structures.

      No, because it sells.

    88. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Woosh'?

      Oh Dear Musk has got his panties in a bunch electric looser farcical contraptions .

    89. Re:People are bad by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Yea, so I fucked up my math. Honest mistake, happens to me a lot.

      If being off by three entire orders of magnitude (3/20=15%, 3/20000=0.015%) constitutes an "honest mistake" that "happens to [you] a lot", how could you possibly function in any part of an industrialized society? Even Walmart cashiers who routinely give change in $1000 bills rather than $1 bills don't last long.

      Like Walmart cashiers, as well as the vast majority of the population, I use a calculator for maths that actually matter, such as figuring correct change.

      Maths that don't matter, such as bullshit v bullshit arguments on a website, I don't really fret over. Namely, because I have more important things to do with my life than ensure that I'm always 100% correct in internet discussions.

      By the by, when you decided to obsess over an obvious mistake, you blinded yourself to the points I was trying to make. I recommend, in the future, spending less time thinking up snarky, smart ass retorts and more time actually absorbing the meaning of what's written, rather than pore over the words themselves.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    90. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The masses will believe that electric cars are dangerously subject to spontaneous burning as a result of this press coverage, despite the extraordinarily solid safety record of the Tesla cars.

      The masses can't afford this car. He's just pissed because the value of his stock is crashing for no reason. I'm sure after all this, he must've gotten a note from some CEO at GM or Honda that just says, "Welcome to the big leagues."

    91. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Every single night I see murders and stabbings on TV news

      They don't actually show murders or stabbings in the news. Those are fictional shows you're watching.

    92. Re:People are bad by geekoid · · Score: 1

      true, but we are tlaking statistics here.
      If I have learned one think in life, it's that my statistics brings the girls to the yard~

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    93. Re:People are bad by afidel · · Score: 1

      Hehe, I don't give it any blame, in fact I plan to use the farm exemption to get good old CCA treated lumber when I build a deck because I don't want it to fail in under 20 years like the early ACQ lumber has shown a tendency to do. I wouldn't want to use CCA for a raised bed garden, but for structural members exposed to the elements it's hard to beat (only creosote is better, but a major PITA to work with).

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    94. Re:People are bad by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      I did a fair amount of searching for by-model/per-year figures on fires, so we could have a legitimate comparison, but so far have come up with bupkis.

      What I did find is that the total number of Model S vehicles sold in the last 2 years is about 18,200; According to Musk, 1 in every 6,066 cars has caught fire.

      Compare that to the Ford Fusion, which sells 250,000 units each year; it would take 41 2012 - 2013 Fusions catching fire to match the volume by which the Model S has immolated.

      Now, if only someone can find out exactly how many 2012 - 2013 Fusions have caught fire...

      Not that knowing would make it any less stupid of an argument - car + speed + big fucking hunk of metal == one bad day, regardless of what fuel the car uses.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    95. Re: People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are saying that there have only been 20 accidents involving the Model S? I am sorry, that is not accurate. Just go to a service center and ask them how many cars they have had to repair.

    96. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I have learned one think in life

      You haven't.

    97. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no.

        the poster meant that they are ignorant in that they refuse to understand the basic idea and application of statistics. The trivia of collect football stats and breakfast cereals are unrelated details.

    98. Re:People are bad by Idarubicin · · Score: 2

      Instead of taking his word as gospel, do your own research:...Per Wikipedia, somewhere around 18,200 Model S' have been sold since 2012; 3-4 of them have caught on fire...

      So far, what you're telling me is that Musk's rate of about 1 in 6000 - about 3 fires in 18,000 cars - is accurate.

      Ford sold over 250,000 Fusions in 2013 alone, and if you can find a figure for how many of those caught on fire, I'd bet dollars to pesos that the percentage will be far lower than that of the Model S.

      And now you're telling me that Musk is wrong because of...your gut feeling. While I guess that's more honest than just making up an absurdly high percentage like you did in your first post, you still aren't bringing any useful information to the table.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    99. Re: People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then it's even worse for normal cars.
      If there are tons of fires in gasoline cars, but only 1% of accidents cause a fire, that means the rest
      of them are catching fire for no reason at all. So far none of the Teslas are just busting into flames all on their own.

    100. Re: People are bad by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      As others on other news sites have pointed out, Elton's statistics are really bad.

      Funny how everyone saying this is ignoring the speed and collisions involved, and thus using bad statistics.

    101. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Poe's law in action

    102. Re:People are bad by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Fine: Ford sold ~250,000 Fusions in 2012. We'll assume, for the sake of argument, the same amount were sold in 2013.

      It would take 82 2012 - 2013 model year Ford Fusions to catch fire in that time period before the model has as high a failure rate as the Tesla S.

      Now, if you want to try and find out exactly how many 2012 - 2013 Ford Fusions have caught fire, be my guest. I didn't have any luck (doesn't seem like the NHTSA tracks vehicle fires by model-year), but maybe I was looking in the wrong places.

      If you want to keep pretending that comparing a total of 18,200 units of one electric car that's only existed for 2 years, to the literal billions of gasoline cars that have been sold in the past 100 years is somehow a legitimate comparison to make, go bother someone else.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    103. Re: People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well based on the design of the battery compartment, as well as first hand accounts from the owners of the Teslas in question, I'd say that most fires are PROBABLY less catastrophic.

      For example, one of the owners (the one that ran over the towing hitch on the interstate) said that the only reason why his car caught fire is because it warned him a couple of times that there was damage, and he chose to continue driving. First, is there any gasoline car at this point that will inform you of physical, potentially catastrophic damage? Nope. You don't know until shortly before the car catches on fire! I think the warning system itself should lend credibility to the safety and reliability of the Tesla S.

      Secondly, all three Teslas involved were noted to have burned in a "controlled manner", allowing fire crews to properly put out the flames with little complication.

      You can't just look at the number of fires involved, you have to look at the outcome and circumstances behind each. Based on what I've seen, all three cars did exactly what they were supposed to do to ensure passenger safety in such an emergency. That consistency counts for a hell of a lot in my book.

    104. Re:People are bad by St.Creed · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yeah. I was rather amazed by this quote:

      "The second Model S car fire occurred outside Merida, Mexico on the Yucatan Peninsula. In that case, the vehicle was traveling at 100 miles per hour before the accident. During Tesla's conference call on Tuesday to discuss quarterly results with analysts, CEO Elon Musk said "The car actually sheared something like 17 feet of concrete wall, then went through a concrete wall, then smashed into a tree." The passengers, who survived what could have been a fatal accident in a less safe car, were able to flee the scene."

      If you can walk away from a collision that starts at 100 mph, you're both extremely lucky and the car was well-designed. Amazing.

      --
      Therefore, by the (faulty) logic you're using, you're just a cow with a keyboard - osu-neko (2604)
    105. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...I did not know that Sarah Palin posts on Slashdot.

    106. Re:People are bad by lgw · · Score: 2

      That's the best suggestion I've seen for improving /. in a long time! Wow, I'd take that ahead of Unicode support.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    107. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Like Walmart cashiers, as well as the vast majority of the population, I use a calculator for maths that actually matter, such as figuring correct change.

      I was at Walmart the other day and they still make change by hand. Counting out bills and coins. The register does not do that math for them.

    108. Re:People are bad by luther349 · · Score: 1

      yep big 3 hate new guys eating into there profits, look how many upstarts and car company's they killed. really the case with electric cars.

    109. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wrong. Wooshes have been decreasing for decades.

    110. Re: People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are saying that there have only been 20 accidents involving the Model S? I am sorry, that is not accurate. Just go to a service center and ask them how many cars they have had to repair.

      Number of repairs != number of accidents.

    111. Re:People are bad by yurtinus · · Score: 3, Informative

      If ever there were reason to question your statistics...

      --
      +1 Disagree
    112. Re:People are bad by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      I think that's sort of the point... There have been three fires in the electric car that's only existed for 2 years with some 18k units on the road. We're seeing a big media hoopla about three incidents. Musk has already said three incidents is not significant enough to draw any conclusions. Yet Tesla still gets attacked for the fires. So, Musk pulls up some general statistics for internal combustion automobiles to show that - yeah, three is not a significant number. But, for some reason that's being intellectually dishonest because he's not taking into account fires for new cars. Cars in his class. Cars with four doors. Cars with a T in the name.

      Yes, it's good to point out that the numbers include older cars that might be in poorer states of repair. It's also good to point out that the company is being attacked on an incident rate of 3. They're expected to respond to the hoopla over an incident rate that is impossible to draw any legitimate conclusions from anyway.

      Yet, you're insisting they are intellectually dishonest... Go ahead and make a legitimate comparison. We're waiting...

      --
      +1 Disagree
    113. Re:People are bad by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      No no no, he doesn't tell *his* audience to get a job, he tells NPR's audience to get a job.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    114. Re:People are bad by flibbajobber · · Score: 1

      2010-2012: 93 insured Ford Fusions caught fire (3-yr period, so 31 per year) without even being involved in crashes or vandalism. (That's 2010-2012 model year, not claim year, i.e. we aren't talking about 8-year-old Ford Fusions here.)

      That's out of 800000 insured-years of vehicles, or ~267000 vehicles insured for 3 years each. At 31 per year, that's roughly 1 in 8000 insured Ford Fusions catch fire every year, without even being involved in accidents. In two years, that would be 2 in 8000 (i.e. 1 in 4000).

      Sure it's not 2013 stats, but over two years, 1 in 4000 insured Ford Fusions caught fire just standing still.

      Coincidentally, the Ford Fusion stats happen to be almost right at the average - according to the source below, 1 in 8142 insured passenger cars, SUVs and pickups has a noncrash fire claim made against it.

      source: http://www.iihs.org/media/ae7293cc-294f-4e31-b3ad-827b25317eb8/-1367394320/HLDI%20Research/Fire%20losses/HLDI_FireLosses_0913.pdf

    115. Re:People are bad by flibbajobber · · Score: 1

      That's out of 800000 insured-years of vehicles, or ~267000 vehicles insured for 3 years each.

      Oops, I mean ~267000 vehicles for each of the 3 model years.

    116. Re:People are bad by Blake1024 · · Score: 1

      +1 liberal (above)

    117. Re:People are bad by flibbajobber · · Score: 3, Informative

      1 in 8142 insured passenger cars, SUVS and pickups for model years 2010-12 were involved in a noncrash fire claim.

      93 Fusions over MY2010 to MY2012 (800000 insured vehicles) caught fire without even being involved in a crash. Extrapolate that to ~62 Fusions for MY12 -MY13, and that's not even counting the ones involved in accidents.

      source: http://www.iihs.org/media/ae7293cc-294f-4e31-b3ad-827b25317eb8/-1367394320/HLDI%20Research/Fire%20losses/HLDI_FireLosses_0913.pdf

    118. Re:People are bad by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      Wait, are you chastising the poor guy for pointing a very large and obvious mistake in your argument?

    119. Re:People are bad by Windwraith · · Score: 1

      Still, those cars that caught fire were involved in messy accidents. This is an honest question now, can accidents be correlated to mileage, or is it a purely random factor that just happens?
      I don't know, I don't even have a car, and most likely won't be able to even afford a Tesla, but so much news about 3 cars that would have been totaled regardless of manufacturer, with the drivers surviving without a scratch, it...I don't know, sounds like too early and too little to make a scandal out of it. If someone had died inside, then sure, but they sounded pretty safe and sound, all of them.

    120. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, people often choose ignorance. But most of the time, most people do so rationally. Does each of us know who won each college football game this past weekend, and which players contributed what to the results? We could ... but odds are, many of us "don't feel like it," and are therefore ignorant about who's up or down in the BCS standings.

      And the point being, if you admit that you don't care enough to learn anything about it, why are you claiming to be an expert on whether something that depends on that knowledge is true?

      If you don't know anything about College Football, giving betting odds to other people is stupid by definition.

      Your ignorance is not equal or greater to my knowledge, no matter how much simpler you think your life would be if that were true.

    121. Re:People are bad by gmhowell · · Score: 1

      It wasn't due to hard cornering, it was due to quick transitions, turns in one direction to turns in another direction. The term you'll want to google is 'Swing arm suspension', common in cheap cars of the time. This includes the VWs you mention as well as the Fiat 500/600 of the time.

      --
      Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
    122. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Elon Musk is really bad a stats PERIOD, there gasoline engines people should expect something possible like a massive ball of fire. Throwing redundant stats at people/press is not going to do anything but continue to make him look like the fool he really is. He is nothing more then an investor, but yet has to be front and center of anything he's involved in.

      The cost of building these cars compared to what they are selling them for, equals massive amounts of lost potential profit, the only way that Tesla can stay afloat is thru there stock prices. When you mouth off about how safe these cars are then you read about battery fires that are directly from accidents, (even tho none of the batteries have going up in flames out of the blue), you are going to be targeted.

      The difference is people have the expectation that a battery operated vehicle is built NOT TO CATCH FIRE. Further more I have a extremely difficult time believing that these were "high speed impacts" and the cars managed to stay in tactic, without any major injuries. Either these people are extremely lucky to have walked away, or Elon isn't telling the truth.

      Again I mention "from accidents" (in fact I thought the first fire was related from an intentional wreck to find out what if anything could or would happen). You have Unions, Dealers, Politicians being bought off, and naturally the media/press can be bought off as well. I have no problem with Tesla Vehicles, But if you cannot control your CEO to openly engage the media, via live interviews and explain with pictures/video/crash data, keeping to your company solely into focus and its track record, all the other stats become redundant, and blur the focus away from your company (or I should say people lose interest when you start to blabber meaningless stats people already know)

      If your going to deal with the press you need to stop hiding behind a desk and get out there to show people, but the problem is Elon Musk is unknown and not very many people trust what he is saying.

    123. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have a feeling you don't get many dinner guests.

    124. Re:People are bad by Teancum · · Score: 1

      You seem to be thinking that the sensors have some human level intelligence associated with them. The sensors merely indicated that there was an abnormal condition experienced by the equipment... an error condition as it were. That certainly you could say under certain conditions when comparing other senors and automotive conditions like vehicle speed and charge level history could be something of a concern, I would dare say this was an unusual enough situation that it is likely the conditions seen by this vehicle was even anticipated by the engineers designing the Model S.

      That perhaps after the engineers are able to retrieve some of the vehicle data from these accidents and review what actually happened could put those sensor states into their warning system and put up a more urgent warning, I really think this is armchair quarterbacking and unrealistic in terms of expectations of Tesla Motors.

    125. Re:People are bad by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

      2010-2012: 93 insured Ford Fusions caught fire (3-yr period, so 31 per year) without even being involved in crashes or vandalism.

      You misread the table. From the report: The results in Table 2 are presented in descending order of relative claim frequency within each size class. For an individual vehicle series to appear, the vehicle had to have at least 20,000 insured vehicle years or 100 claims. Coverage results in this report have been standardized for driver age and deductible. To provide information on as many vehicle series as possible, noncrash fire comprehensive data for model years 2010-12 are combined in this report for those vehicles with basic designs that remained unchanged. Some individual series also are grouped into com- bined series when these vehicles are similar except for a different engine. These combinations are listed in Appendix A.

      I interpret that the figures included in the report not only auto claims resulting from a crash but also non-auto accident related fires.

      --
      These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
    126. Re:People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The points you were trying to make were invalidated on their face because your 'evidence' was completely and utterly wrong. This isn't a 'bullshit vs. bullshit' argument on the internet. It's a 'bullshit (you) vs. verifiable facts and statistics (us)' argument on the internet.

    127. Re:People are bad by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      You don't have to be liberal to dislike Rush Limbaugh...

      --
      +1 Disagree
    128. Re: People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is when you know that car in general travel slowly much more often than they travel fast.

    129. Re:People are bad by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      People aren't bad at understanding statistics. They don't even get that far. They look at headlines. Tesla catches fire! Toyota accelerates out of control! Woman who ate tomatoes got cancer! Russian meteor strikes lake!

      Most people have exceptionally poor scientific educations.

    130. Re:People are bad by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "Every single night I see murders and stabbings on TV news,"

      Exactly. You're a slave to the media hype machine and don't have a good enough education to realize you're being hoodwinked for advertising profit.

    131. Re:People are bad by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Oh please. The mainstream media (no, it's not a proper noun) skews reporting to get ratings, which gets them advertising income.

    132. Re:People are bad by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "Journalism" is telling stories. Journalists are good at that. Determining how dangerous something is, or how beneficial it is, is called "science." Journalists have always been bad at science. For some reason people think journalists should be good at science. Also talk show hosts. And physicians.

    133. Re: People are bad by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is. Even very small biases can invalidate a statistical analysis. Very different sample size (20 vs. a million for example) isn't necessarily a bias, but it certainly can be. You've got to be especially careful when you're not using a random sample.

    134. Re:People are bad by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "Like Walmart cashiers, as well as the vast majority of the population, I use a calculator for maths that actually matter, such as figuring correct change."

      Ah, you're one of those. Noted.

    135. Re: People are bad by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      "This (20) is not a statistically significant number."

      That statement is meaningless. Neither one of you knows anything about statistics.

    136. Re:People are bad by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      What, precisely, are you trying to accomplish with this comment?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    137. Re:People are bad by Blake1024 · · Score: 0

      I really didn't see this as a like/dislike Rush issue. I saw it as a does Rush promote the idea that there are far more people who are on government aid than should be. I can't imagine anyone suggesting he doesn't strongly promote this idea. Rush doesn't tilt things to his listeners. He tears them apart at times. It seems he really believes what he says. I believe there are many people that truly need assistance and should be getting far more aid than they are. This includes blind people, retarded people, people missing limbs, etc.. The problem is we are approaching 50% of the people receiving government aid. This is an absurd number. I know a 30 year old woman who has a four year college degree in a marketable trade, has no physical, mental, or emotional deficits. She refuses to get a job. She doesn't even look, and the government doesn't ask her to. The government gives her food stamps and other aid. Recently, she gave birth to her first child. The government paid all of the expenses and now has her child on free medical. As this type of aid increases, why would most people work? Would there be enough workers to keep society working? Politicians (Democrats) keep giving more because they personally get more power by promising other people's money to their voters. People complain that neither side compromises and we have a deadlock. This is far from the truth. Our country has been moving steadily left for at least the last 50 years. Obviously one side has been compromising... If they were both compromising equally we'd be roughly where we were in terms of socialism. But that isn't the case. The apparent deadlock now is because the people on the right are tired of compromising, and the left hasn't (on average) for the last 50 years. This is not a debate, it is undenable fact. It is an undeniable fact that our country has and continues to move left.

    138. Re:People are bad by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      It's a very important skill to be able to check your calculations, approximately. It's a fairly useful skill to be able to DO trivial calculations without mechanical or electronic aid as well.

      Cashiers used to be able to accurately count change without a calculator. I can, and I've never been a cashier. They should CERTAINLY be able to mentally check whether what the machine is telling them is reasonable. If a cashier hits the wrong key and the till tells him to give you back $100 on your gum purchase, he needs to be able to catch that error by doing at least an approximate calculation in his head.

      Your 15% figure was obviously ridiculous. Anyone capable of elementary reasoning and grade school mathematics would realize that immediately. You appear to be one of "the number came out of the computer and the computer is always right" type. With the computer you say ridiculous things whenever you make a simple error. Without it you say ridiculous things all the time.

    139. Re:People are bad by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Yea, so I'm bad at arithmetic; have been ever since I was a baby, and a golf club was used to make a fissure in the back of my skull. Thanks for making such a big deal about it.

      Anyway, I know and accept this fact, and have come to terms with the knowledge that yes, I will need at least a pencil and scratch paper to determine what part of the bill I should pay, and how much to tip.

      If a cashier hits the wrong key and the till tells him to give you back $100 on your gum purchase, he needs to be able to catch that error by doing at least an approximate calculation in his head.

      Well, OK, not that bad at arithmetic...

      You appear to be one of "the number came out of the computer and the computer is always right" type.

      You appear to be one of those "makes assumptions about a person's entire lifestyle and personality based on one thing they said, once" types.

      Which would make you wrong, a lot.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    140. Re: People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why do you have to drag Elton John into this?

    141. Re:People are bad by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Yea, so I'm bad at arithmetic; have been ever since I was a baby, and a golf club was used to make a fissure in the back of my skull. Thanks for making such a big deal about it.

      If you're bad at arithmetic then check VERY carefully, using a calculator if you need to, before you make a dickish comment that depends on it. If you actually have a disability, that's too bad. It doesn't excuse being an ass.

      I picked that example of that cashier on purpose. You made the same order of magnitude mistake (probably a little worse, depending on the cost of gum in your area). Except instead of generously giving the customer $100 you smack talked someone (who was correct and CAN do math) with a completely made up "fact." You ARE that bad at math. At least you were in this thread.

      What assumptions did I make about your life? That you made a wildly incorrect and dickish comment on Slashdot? Part of the record. That you can't do math? Stipulated by your own statement (also on record). Anything else?

    142. Re: People are bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not how statistics works....

      Actually, that IS how statistics work... It just depends what you're trying to bias.

  4. so make it higher everytime, already by invalid-access · · Score: 1

    "Highway speeds" is when you'd most want a low center-of-mass in terms of improving driving quality. If you're going to increase it for highway speeds, maybe just make it higher, always.

    1. Re: so make it higher everytime, already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct, it is already higher at slow speeds. They're just turning off the energy savings optimization on the freeway, until January when it will be a choice. It's clear that this is just to combat sensationalism unfortunately.

    2. Re:so make it higher everytime, already by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      "Highway speeds" is when you'd most want a low center-of-mass in terms of improving driving quality. If you're going to increase it for highway speeds, maybe just make it higher, always.

      So... less prone to fires caused by highway debris, more prone to high speed rollovers?

      Not sure that's the wisest tradeoff...

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    3. Re:so make it higher everytime, already by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Or add a button to temporarily raise it if you're about to run over something? :)

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    4. Re:so make it higher everytime, already by dcsmith · · Score: 1

      Or add a button to temporarily raise it if you're about to run over something? :)

      Isn't jump the "A" button?

      --
      This has been a test. If this had been an actual Sig, you would have been amused.
    5. Re:so make it higher everytime, already by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 2

      The CoG on the Tesla is already so low that the NTSB had to resort to "extreme measures" (using a ramp for one wheel) to even convince the car to roll during safety testing.

      There are not too many non-racecars (Porche, Ferrari, etc) that have to have this measure taken.

      There is very little risk of rolling a Model S.

    6. Re:so make it higher everytime, already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah. Turboboost FTW!

    7. Re:so make it higher everytime, already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rather provide a temporary lower if you make a sharp turn, much easier to determine the steering wheel rotating at an aggressive angle than it is to sense an object is about to strike the under carriage

    8. Re:so make it higher everytime, already by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

      The CoG on the Tesla is already so low that the NTSB had to resort to "extreme measures" (using a ramp for one wheel) to even convince the car to roll during safety testing.

      Did that safety test include the still-not-released software update Tesla is planning to push OTA? No?

      Then it's apples-and-oranges.

      That leads me to wonder: if an auto maker pushes some sort of post-NTSB-safety-test update, shouldn't they have to recertify the vehicle with the new parameters before making the update public?

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    9. Re:so make it higher everytime, already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Tesla S does have a "button" (on the touchscreen) which allows you to temporarily raise the vehicle to clear taller objects (e.g., deep snow, a steep driveway). This function currently only allows raising the vehicle at low speeds however.

    10. Re:so make it higher everytime, already by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      I expect the safety testing is to see how the passengers in the car fare in the event of a rollover moreso than the likelihood of a rollover. You can analyze the impact raising the COG has on stability pragmatically, it's by no means an "apples and oranges" comparison. In any case, it's far less likely to roll than your average new SUV/CUV on the road today.

      Man, you really dislike Tesla.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    11. Re:so make it higher everytime, already by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 1

      Lots of cars ship with air suspension. Audi, Cadillac, BMW, Mercedes and others have shipped this.

      I suspect the NTSB tests them in "worst case" configuration.

      Considering the Tesla has similar air suspension to the Audi design, it's probably a solved problem that you're frothing about for no reason.

  5. Learn and Improve by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 1

    I am sure Tesla will continue to find ways to improve their design in areas of safety and others, as you would expect from any newer technology. Of course, media attention forces the irony of making design changes while claiming there are no issues of concern. I feel for him, its a no win situation. He should be more up-front though, as we have already discussed at length the misuse of the statistical comparison.

    1. Re:Learn and Improve by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

      Let us know when Tesla's body count gets above zero.

      --
      There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
    2. Re:Learn and Improve by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 1

      The firewalling in the Model S is superb. The odds of a fire killing someone are extremely low because the batteries are surrounded by heat shields that will give someone 10-15 minutes to escape before they are actually burned.

      I suspect that no fire deaths will ever occur in a Tesla (except, perhaps someone who is already unconscious from striking at tree at 100mph, or similar).

  6. Let me get this straight.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1 out of ever 1350 gasoline cars last year caught on fire? How old were those cars? Maintenance records?

    I'm not saying he's a liar but I think there is more to this tale than these two statistics show. He could very well be right but given the high marks that this yearâ(TM)s Tesla has in the crash ratings versus some 1988 Yugo going up in flames in a collision makes a world of difference.

  7. get real, people by Thud457 · · Score: 3, Funny

    If Elon Musk and KAOS really wanted you DEAD , do you really think they're going to piddle around with setting your overpriced %1'er golfcart on fire?!!

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    1. Re:get real, people by noh8rz10 · · Score: 1

      overpriced %1'er golfcart

      nice. I laughed.

    2. Re:get real, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's a percent-oner?

    3. Re:get real, people by gmclapp · · Score: 1

      Not everyone in the top 1% of earners can afford a Tesla.

      --
      Common Sense (+1)
    4. Re:get real, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      SQL injection attack so the NSA can't alert him that I'm onto him.
      The guy's stockpiling ICBMs right under the government's nose, you can't be too careful!

    5. Re:get real, people by a1cypher · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'd be more concerned about the "over the air" updates.

      If he wanted you dead, all he has to do is push an update that tells the car to not brake or tell the suspension to slam you into the ground.. or to overdraw the batteries causing a fire.. or take over the steering and slam you into a wall. Or discharge all the airbags while you're traveling highway speeds... you get the idea.

      I wonder what kind of security that communication system has.

    6. Re:get real, people by LunaticTippy · · Score: 1

      top 1% earn >$394k. That's 5 and a half Tesla Model S per year.

      Anyone making that kind of money could afford a Tesla if that was their priority.

      --
      Man, you really need that seminar!
    7. Re:get real, people by gmclapp · · Score: 1

      Citation needed.

      I have never heard that number in my life. Last I checked the top 1% earners in the world earned between $30k/yr and $40k/yr

      Usually, numbers as high as the one you just posited are intentionally excluding large groups of underprivileged people for the express purpose of skewing the statistic.

      --
      Common Sense (+1)
    8. Re:get real, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      top 1% earn >$394k. That's 5 and a half Tesla Model S per year.

      Anyone making that kind of money could afford a Tesla if that was their priority.

      Before taxes -- take-home at $400k a year is about $20k a month. Not a small amount by any measure, but I'd bet a good number of people at that income level have high enough expenses with their housing that $1900/month on a car payment is a bit of a stretch. Especially since they likely have a spouse that won't approve of the $300/month Toyota to park next to it.

    9. Re:get real, people by tgd · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'd be more concerned about the "over the air" updates.

      If he wanted you dead, all he has to do is push an update that tells the car to not brake or tell the suspension to slam you into the ground.. or to overdraw the batteries causing a fire.. or take over the steering and slam you into a wall. Or discharge all the airbags while you're traveling highway speeds... you get the idea.

      I wonder what kind of security that communication system has.

      GM cars with OnStar can get updates OTA, as well. I'd bet most (if not all) cars with telematics systems can do it.

    10. Re:get real, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not everyone in the top 1% of earners can afford a Tesla.

      The top 1 percent is defined as households with incomes above $394,000 in 2012. They can afford it. They may well not choose to, but they could.

    11. Re:get real, people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are making $300k or more a year and you can't swing a $70k car, you should probably evaluate your spending habits. It's perfectly fine if you don't want to shell out that much for a car, but you should be able to.

  8. World's Tiniest Violin by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 0

    Media Darling Gets Unfair Share of Positive and Negative Media Attention - News at 11!

    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  9. Nice move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Third, to reinforce how strongly we feel about the low risk of fire in our cars, we will be amending our warranty policy to cover damage due to a fire, even if due to driver error.

    Now that's putting your money where your mouth is.

    1. Re:Nice move by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      Genius marketing move, and it will probably be a rounding error in warranty costs - which will again pay off in marketing.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  10. glove compartment? by noh8rz10 · · Score: 4, Funny

    tfs:

    Every Tesla vehicle includes internal walls between the battery modules, in addition to a firewall between the battery pack and the passenger compartment — enough shielding, in the event of a fire, to prevent pens and papers in the glove compartment from combusting

    so, in case of a fire we should crawl into the glove box?

    1. Re:glove compartment? by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      tfs:

      Every Tesla vehicle includes internal walls between the battery modules, in addition to a firewall between the battery pack and the passenger compartment — enough shielding, in the event of a fire, to prevent pens and papers in the glove compartment from combusting

      so, in case of a fire we should crawl into the glove box?

      No but you can avoid the extra tickets when the police ask for your registration and proof of insurance.

      "Yes officer, they are right there in that glowing red box. Please feel free to search the car while you're in there"

    2. Re:glove compartment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      â" enough shielding, in the event of a fire, to prevent pens and papers in the glove compartment from combusting

      so, in case of a fire we should crawl into the glove box?

      It's HUGE, I'm telling you, huge.

      (Like yo mamma, detroit)

    3. Re:glove compartment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering that cellulose ignites at about 451deg glove box does not seem to be such a safe place to hid unless you're (rotisserie) chicken.

    4. Re:glove compartment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      According to the reports the car tells you to get out when it is on fire, that just means your papers in the glove box aren't likely to spontaneously combust and spread to the passenger cabin. Making it less likely to have substantial damage to items left in the cabin.

    5. Re:glove compartment? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Make the whole car out of glove boxes!

  11. With cheap oil on the horizon by G3ckoG33k · · Score: 1

    With cheap, longlasting oil on the horizon how dare they sell beautifully made 'lectric cars already now?

    Check out my favorite electric car, a Mercedes SLS Electric Drive - a fantastic drive! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IElqf-FCMs8

  12. Re:One big difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    *facepalm*

  13. Financial media by korbulon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Now there's an institution that doesn't get enough scrutiny, especially the financial news channels. Bloomberg and their ilk aren't so far removed from Fox and Sky (or CNN) in terms of the actual product they deliver, which is sensationalist tripe, delivered by eye candy.

    What passes for journalism today is often little more than a series "factoids" carefully chosen to fit a particular narrative - pro bono omnium hominum.

    1. Re:Financial media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even down to the way in which they word statements attributed to public figures, depending on whether they want to confer credibility or doubt. When referencing those expressing views that conflict with their ideological agenda they use words that suggest doubt: "The President denies any knowledge of Benghazi attacks" instead of neutral phrasing like, "The President reports having no knowledge of the Benghazi attacks." You have to watch those intellectually crooked bastards - they're pernicious.

    2. Re:Financial media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What passes for journalism today is often little more than a series "factoids" carefully chosen to fit a particular narrative - pro bono omnium hominum.

      You sure as hell wouldn't know that from reading the comments on /. during the last US presidential election. Virtually all comments were pro-Obama/anti-Romney, just spouting the Democrat/MSM talking points. Ooooo, Obama's stopping global warming, will provide free healthcare for everyone, the oceans' have stopped rising, etc. vs Romney is evil, he took away a cancer patient's health care and killed her, he laid off a billion people, etc.

  14. not a straight comparison. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    His statistics aren't exactly apples and apples due to the different years and makes of gasoline vehicles on the road. A fairer metric would be number fires from model 2010 or greater gasoline sedans that caused serious injury or death. Which is a much tougher statistic to find, but may not be as dramatic to make his point.

    1. Re:not a straight comparison. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I here this cry a lot, but it's just an attempt to push a particular narrative.

      The real comparison is the the number and severity of outcomes from high speed collisions between full side sedans and sub substantial debris on the road (i.e reciver hitch mounts as in the case of the latest Tesla fire). To determine if the vehicle has an out of the ordinary safety problem, you have to look at fires, rollovers, catastrophic loss of control, injuries, deaths, etc.

      That's what the NTSB will be doing.

      Which is less safe:

      a.) a small, easily contained battery fire that you were warned about and had almost an hour to avoid
      b.) a rollover accident at 80MPH?

    2. Re:not a straight comparison. by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      The argument about the age of the car isn't a good one. Fire safety in cars has been pretty close to modern standards for many decades - at least since the '80s. And there are some factors that are not in new cars' favor as well - more common turbo systems, more densely packed engine bays, more electronics, more common composite materials.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  15. More TSA thinking by JustNiz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >> Tesla is about to push an 'over-the-air update' to its vehicles' air suspension that will create more ground clearance at highway speeds.

    This is probably all a stupid kneejerk reaction. The suspension was likely already at the ideal height as determined by a lot of windtunnel etc research. Doing this will certainly create more lift under the car and so quite a lot less efficiency all in the name of being seen to be doing something visible (but actually pointless and only negative) in response to a microscopically small chance of another similar accident.

    It just occurred to me that this is a whole lot like the retarded thinking behind the creation and continued existence of the TSA.

    1. Re:More TSA thinking by timeOday · · Score: 1

      Exactly. But can't this sort of thing be overridden by the end-user? I would hope so, but probably not.

    2. Re:More TSA thinking by Jeremi · · Score: 0

      This is probably all a stupid kneejerk reaction.

      An excellent description of the remainder of your post. Unless you've actually talked to the people involved in making that decision, or conducted your own equivalent investigation, you have no idea whether it's justified or not. Your knee is jerking because you've found an excuse to grind your favorite axe.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    3. Re:More TSA thinking by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      Do they specify the amount of the change? Maybe only .00001 meters, but hey they did something.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    4. Re:More TSA thinking by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      This is probably all a stupid kneejerk reaction.

      An excellent description of the remainder of your post. Unless you've actually talked to the people involved in making that decision, or conducted your own equivalent investigation, you have no idea whether it's justified or not. Your knee is jerking because you've found an excuse to grind your favorite axe.

      Yea... or, he has owned a cell phone and/or video game console, and thus is aware of how corporations like to jerk customers around with OTA "updates" that do things the consumer wouldn't necessarily agree to.

      It's a legitimate concern, one Tesla could put to rest by offering it as an optional DIY update (via local media) instead of pushing it out to all models over the air, without explicit permission from the owners.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    5. Re:More TSA thinking by steelfood · · Score: 1

      Not knowing exactly what their update does, I suspect they made it so that the suspension raises only during an accident. So instead of the car sitting back down onto a sharp object after rolling over it and thus resulting in a puncture to the bottom, it stays raised and floating over the sharp object.

      --
      "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
    6. Re:More TSA thinking by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

      No change you could make within the suspension travel of a sports car is significant for clearing dangerously large objects in the road.

      --
      "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  16. except these are fires are on the road by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    so you need to compare all the miles driven between gasoline and electric cars, not just their numbers.

    Sine gasoline care drive about 3 Trillion miles a year in the US, and the total Tesla mileage. probably isn't even a million limes yet, it paint a different picture, doesn't it Elon?

    Miles driven before incident is the measure that's used, not how many are on the road.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    1. Re:except these are fires are on the road by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      isn't even a million limes yet
      Silly American units of measurement.

    2. Re:except these are fires are on the road by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Try 70 million miles and currently growing at 17 million miles a month. Google will tell you that. Or actually reading the earlier Tesla press releases. Or doing any kind of basic research to back up your bad assumption, and then realizing that your assumption is wrong.

    3. Re:except these are fires are on the road by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mmmmmm, lime flavored chips.

      Also, if you want him to stop using random statistics, perhaps you should too.

    4. Re:except these are fires are on the road by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the total Tesla mileage. probably isn't even a million limes yet,

      Well, at least you didn't call it a lemon.

    5. Re:except these are fires are on the road by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Perhaps he's trying to say that they're lemons?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    6. Re:except these are fires are on the road by kencurry · · Score: 2

      Sine gasoline care drive about 3 Trillion miles a year in the US, and the total Tesla mileage. probably isn't even a million limes yet, it paint a different picture, doesn't it Elon?

      Miles driven before incident is the measure that's used, not how many are on the road.

      How many limes to the gallon?

      --
      sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
    7. Re:except these are fires are on the road by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and the total Tesla mileage. probably isn't even a million limes yet

      I'm not certain which limes you're measuring with but if we assume the standard lime is 5cm (wikipedia states 3-6cm) then a million limes is 50km. That's about 31.25 miles for the Amer'cans in the crowd. I'd bet that most Teslas have driven at least a million limes so take that geekoid!

      it paint a different picture, doesn't it Elon?

      Never tried to paint with limes but you can make tasty pies with them. Or use them in mixed drinks and or as a nice flavor twist in Ceviche.

    8. Re:except these are fires are on the road by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      At least at the moment those gasoline car stats, include big trucks which make up a sizable percentage of the miles and yet statistically have fewer accidents.

    9. Re:except these are fires are on the road by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a million limes? i dunno.. since most limes are about 4 inches.. that would be roughly 333,333 miles, so yah i think telsa has done that much so far...

    10. Re:except these are fires are on the road by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By the way, it is apparently around a hundred million tesla miles at this point. Increasing by probably more than 20 million per month, now.

  17. Re:One big difference by reebmmm · · Score: 1

    The per capita statistic is right in the summary:

    Tesla suffers an average of one fire per 6,333 cars, versus a rate of one fire per 1,350 gasoline-powered cars.

  18. the hyperbolization by press continues by SuperBanana · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I read a story early this morning talking about Musk's posting, and the author described the three car fires as "engulfed in flames". Similar language was used in early October; engulfed, erupted, etc.

    In one case, the car provided dashboard cautions immediately after collision with road debris, then warnings, then the driver pulled over a couple of minutes later, the pack was smoking, he was able to get his belongings, etc. The interior of the car remained accessible and intact.

    Meanwhile, I've witnessed, fought, and heard from friends who had car fires. It typically goes something like this: smoke from somewhere. Seconds, maybe 30 if you're lucky, there are flames. Within a minute or two the car is unsalvageable. In a crash in a gasoline car, the car can be on fire within seconds, and it can be a massive fire; rear collisions break up the fuel systems, front crashes cause both oil and gasoline to leak all over hot engine exhaust parts.

    Firefighters generally don't rush to car fires because by the time they got the dispatch call, the car was already gone anyway; they're there mostly to put it out so the wrecker can collect it. Seriously, go look on youtube at car fires. Within the space of a minute or two, the car is well past the point of no return.

    The hyperbolization here is amazing. Years ago Bose had a little problem with their car audio systems; the electrolytic capacitors would leak the electrolyte, which would then drip down the circuit board. In some cars, the amplifier board was positioned such that this would cause a short that would at the least cause smoking, and caused several fires.

    One owner described driving down the highway, hearing the stereo crackle and drop out, looking in the back window and seeing smoke, racing over to the breakdown lane and getting out and the back shelf was already in flames; he barely had time to stop the car and escape an INTERIOR PASSENGER COMPARTMENT FIRE. In a less-than-a-year-old Audi. Reportedly Audi's regional rep inspected the burned-to-the-ground car and the customer got a replacement car.

    Audi, Infiniti, Corvette, and a couple of other companies were affected; recalls were made for everyone except Audi; a bunch of Audi owners banded together when Audi refused to fix the damaged speakers, and kept selling defective units to replace failed ones. nhtsa refused to discuss with us whether they had reports of other fires or failures and refused to allow owners to speak to the person handling the investigation; Audi USA repeatedly claimed they hadn't ever heard of any malfunctions or fires, when we knew they'd paid for replacement vehicles a decade prior, and continued to claim as such even after other owners had sent in registered mail complaints and received confirmation.

    Lo and behold, nhtsa finally got interested and Audi revised the amp board and did a voluntary recall. Presto, no more failures. They spent years milking owners (the amps would last a few years at most before failure.)

    Then there's all the exotic cars that go up in flames; car enthusiast sites cover them routinely. Funny how Ferrari and Lambo never seems to get mentioned in the press as having a lot of car fires, huh? That's what the best money in PR gets you: shit swept under the rug fast.

    1. Re:the hyperbolization by press continues by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny how Ferrari and Lambo never seems to get mentioned in the press as having a lot of car fires, huh? That's what the best money in PR gets you: shit swept under the rug fast.

      Owners were obviously holding their car wrong.

      Capthca: accident

    2. Re:the hyperbolization by press continues by makomk · · Score: 1

      Of course, your example shows one reason why any statement about the Model S's safety from Elon Musk should be taken with a pinch of salt - it's just too new! Capacitors with that issue generally took well over a year to go pop (that's partly why the capacitor manufacturers didn't cotton onto the problem), so if the Model S had exactly the same fire issue you were complaining about Elon Musk could still portray it as less likely to have a fire because it hasn't existed long enough for that kind of problem to show up.

    3. Re:the hyperbolization by press continues by geekoid · · Score: 1

      " That's what the best money in PR gets you:"
      please. It's far simpler then that: Electric cars are new, Elon tried to make himself a media darlings, and the media always turns on their darlings.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:the hyperbolization by press continues by geekoid · · Score: 1

      We aren't far enough into the bathtub curve.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  19. Re:One big difference by intermodal · · Score: 1

    Let's not forget age. Many of the cars that burned were probably much older than any Tesla on the road. We'll see how Teslas built in 2011 do in 2025.

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  20. Age of cars and maintenance matter as well by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The age of the cars matters as well, as does the relative state of maintenance.

    It's a reasonable assumption/statement that all Tesla Model S cars are essentially new and likely to be in near perfect maintenance condition.

    If the gasoline car fire numbers were adjusted to only include cars within the age range of Tesla Model S cars and (if possible) the number of cars still within factory warranties, I would imagine the number of gasoline car fires would be significantly lower.

    1. Re:Age of cars and maintenance matter as well by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      But it's entirely possible that the whole fire vs age curve might just have a different shape between electric cars and gasoline cars.

      One would expect the odds of fire in a gasoline car to increase with age as hoses/connectors wear out. Fire would result when those parts finally fail (whether by themselves or in a collision) in a way that sprays flamable fluid on hot parts (i.e. not every leak results in fire... it needs to leak onto something pretty hot).

      But in an electric car, you'd expect the risk of fire to be much more constant over time, as the battery's impact resistance doesn't change with age. There might still be an increase with age, though, as accident rates rise with car age. But you wouldn't expect to see the fire risk rise as quickly as with gasoline cars.

      So it's possible that a car like the Model S might have a slightly higher risk of fire when it's new (compared to new gasoline cars) and a slightly lower risk of fire when it's older (also compared to similarly aged gasoline cars).

    2. Re:Age of cars and maintenance matter as well by tgd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The age of the cars matters as well, as does the relative state of maintenance.

      It's a reasonable assumption/statement that all Tesla Model S cars are essentially new and likely to be in near perfect maintenance condition.

      If the gasoline car fire numbers were adjusted to only include cars within the age range of Tesla Model S cars and (if possible) the number of cars still within factory warranties, I would imagine the number of gasoline car fires would be significantly lower.

      If you're going to take that route, then you need to exclude from both lists the cars that have had fires as a result of impacts. Now you're at some number of gas cars and zero Tesla vehicles. Because once you get into an impact, the age of the car is largely irrelevant.

      The cold hard fact is, though, that Musk is right -- there's vastly more energy that wants to burn in a gas tank and associated fuel lines. An accident can easily rupture them, as can age corrode through them. (Even ignoring the added corrosion of ethanol these days.)

    3. Re:Age of cars and maintenance matter as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Counter point: In all 3 incidences where a tesla was set on fire it had nothing to do with the age or maintence of the vehicle. If you want apples to apples you need to consider the number of road debree accidents.

      On one hand the layout of the battery pack in a Tesla would be like having a long skinny gas tank stretched across the very bottom of your entire vehicle. If you're going to run over something that's a pretty big target compared to a traditional gas tank. Also Teslas sit pretty low to the ground making the effect worse.
      On the other hand, the bottom of the car is effectively a giant amored plate. If that debree would have struck the bottom of my cavalier with the same level of impact (as calculated from the seattle fire incident) it would have probably shot out the roof of my car, or at least entered the passenger compartment.

    4. Re:Age of cars and maintenance matter as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is my major concern with the available data as well. Having written that, I suspect Tesla would still come out ahead of gasoline cars, just not to the degree being claimed here.

    5. Re:Age of cars and maintenance matter as well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "If you're going to take that route, then you need to exclude from both lists the cars that have had fires as a result of impacts."

      No you wouldn't. Design of the car can contribute to the likelihood of a fire on impact, which is the current concern. Where you place the battery or fuel tank can have a big impact on the likelihood of a fire in common scenario. This is why there are currently regulations about the location of the fuel tank on modern cars. It could be something simple, like the ride height at speed combined with the aerodynamic effects results in a much higher chance of debris impaling the car rather than passing over safely.

  21. It's all about the stock price by jasenj1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The negative stories in financial press are designed to drive down the stock price. Then the buddies of the press - or the people the analysts really work for - can pick up shares on the dip. Or they can warn their buddies that a negative story is coming out and work the options angle.

    - Jasen.

    1. Re:It's all about the stock price by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      And yet those same investors who blame the media for negative stories that drive down the price of their stocks never complain about the stories which drive them up.

    2. Re:It's all about the stock price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't think so. It's all about human nature. We're genetically disposed to notice and pay attention to the new or unusual (such as a saber-tooth tiger coming into sight), and not the ordinary, everyday events (sun rising every day, water flowing down the creek). Our nature hasn't changed, and people are still more likely to notice the unusual (new, exotic, expensive battery-powered sports car catching fire). And the press knows this, has it etched into their DNA.

    3. Re:It's all about the stock price by Speare · · Score: 1

      You can see this if you watch the Google News links related to a given stock. All year, "ValueWatch" has been beating Tesla up at every opportunity, and when there is no opportunity, they make up a reason. Someone's in a squeeze, so they try to hit the stock. Someone wants to buy, so they try to hit the stock. Even with all this brouhaha, TSLA is up 300% this calendar year.

      --
      [ .sig file not found ]
    4. Re:It's all about the stock price by CraftyJack · · Score: 1

      The financial press is probably a lot less concerned about a few fires, and a lot more concerned about funky accounting.

  22. Need fires per miles driven. by gurps_npc · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Fires per car is worthwhile information, but to be honest, we really need fires per miles driven information.

    That is, if the fires per tesla car is 1/6,000, with a total of 6 billion miles driven, and the fires per gas car is 1/1,300 with a total of 12 billion miles driven (because people drive gas cars much further), then tesla would still be more dangerous than a gas car.

    Note, I personally believe that a Tesla car is safer and less prone to fires than a gas powered car, but the statistic we really need has not been given.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Need fires per miles driven. by dirk · · Score: 1

      I think you need to check your math. If we double the Tesla fires (because it only drove half the miles) it is still 1/3000, which is still less than the 1/1300 of gas cars.

      --

      "Information wants to be expensive" - Stewart Brand, the same guy who said "Information wants to be free"
    2. Re:Need fires per miles driven. by tgd · · Score: 2

      Google can answer that question pretty easily, at least roughly.

      Tesla: 1 fire per 25 million miles (approx. 3 in 75 million)
      Others: 1 fire in 865000 miles (approx. 290,000 in 250 billion)

      So, you're 4.6 times more likely to have a fire in a non-Tesla vehicle.

    3. Re:Need fires per miles driven. by mdielmann · · Score: 2

      First, you need to look at the criteria you use to determine what you want to learn.

      If the question is: What are the odds that a random vehicle being driven today will catch fire, broken down by Tesla vs. non-Tesla?, then Musk has given the correct figure with the data we have.

      If the question is: How many miles does a vehicle have to be driven, on mean, before it catches fire, broken down by Tesla vs. non-Tesla?, then Musk hasn't given us enough information to determine. Depending on data collection, it may be hard to determine. A similar question could be asked with age, as well.

      If the question is: Which car has more expensive fires, as a percentage of the value of the vehicle that caught on fire?, then Musk has given no information at all. I haven't heard whether any of the Teslas that caught fire were written off or not, so it's hard for me to say.

      If the question is: How likely are you to walk away from a car fire without injury or loss of life, broken down by Tesla vs. non-Tesla?, then the limited information says the Tesla is safer. This is by virtue that no one has been injured or killed by the fire in any of these three incidents, while we know people have been injured in car fires before. It's statistically irrelevant at this point, and hopefully will take a number of years before enough statistics are collected for them to be relevant.

      --
      Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
    4. Re:Need fires per miles driven. by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Not really. Since all the Tesla fires have been in collisions, we need fires per collision information. It's quite likely that expensive sports cars get in different numbers of collisions than soccer mom cars.

  23. Tesla's curse by srussia · · Score: 5, Funny

    That's what you get for using DC in a car named after me, Elon!

    --
    Set your phasers on "funky"!
    1. Re:Tesla's curse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The motors are AC...

    2. Re:Tesla's curse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The batteries are DC

    3. Re:Tesla's curse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Seriously, any electric car that isn't powered by drawing its needed energy from an upper-stratosphere high voltage standing wave isn't worthy of the name Tesla. (well, I suppose honorable mention would go to a car with a directed lightning gun)

    4. Re:Tesla's curse by faedle · · Score: 1

      All batteries are DC.

      Unless you know of some alien technology even Tesla himself wasn't privvy to.

    5. Re:Tesla's curse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what you get for using DC in a car named after me, Elon!

      Except the engines are NOT DC! The DC power is converted into three phase AC, exactly the one Tesla popularized for his rotating magnetic field motors! The thing is, Tesla didn't just offer the AC power source - Tesla invented an end-to-end, complete solution utilizing AC and all the benefits AC brings.

    6. Re:Tesla's curse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The batteries are DC (all batteries are) but the motor in the Tesla S is based on Nikola Tesla's 3-phase AC design.

    7. Re:Tesla's curse by geekoid · · Score: 1

      I am aware of a lot of technology that would be alien to Tesla.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    8. Re:Tesla's curse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      right ... so the car doesn't have batteries and gets it's power "from an upper-stratosphere high voltage standing wave"

    9. Re:Tesla's curse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All batteries are DC.

      Unless you know of some alien technology even Tesla himself wasn't privvy to.

      Wireless power. That's what Nicola Tesla would want.

      Imagine an induction coil embedded in the road like a wireless cellphone charger. Instead of charging a battery, it just powers the motor directly.

    10. Re:Tesla's curse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Funny as it may be something tells me Tesla would have been just fine with it. He never struck me as the type of person who was going to shoehorn every problem into his one solution. If he was I don't think he'd have invented near as much incredible stuff.

  24. Re:Fraudulent employment numbers by khallow · · Score: 0

    Defend your statist power grab like real men.

    Coming from someone who posts anonymously and very off topic? You're getting the "defense" you deserve.

  25. Over the air update by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    "Tesla is about to push an 'over-the-air update' to its vehicles' air suspension that will create more ground clearance at highway speeds."

    Great. In the future I can look forward to my car's performance changing at a corporate whim just like all of my cloud-based services do.

    I assume when you buy a Tesla you own the car. Does anyone know, is the Tesla's software licensed to the owner in the same way that purchased software is licensed to the buyer? Can I legally control the software on a car that I own, or does DMCA say that I am a criminal if I do any customization?

    1. Re:Over the air update by Nkwe · · Score: 1

      "Tesla is about to push an 'over-the-air update' to its vehicles' air suspension that will create more ground clearance at highway speeds."

      Think of the hack potential. Synchronized hydraulics anyone? (So yeah it's an air system, but having all the Tesla's on the road bouncing in sync would be a sight to behold.)

  26. Musk is comparing Apples to Oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Musk is comparing single vehicle line, where the oldest car still carries factory warranty to all of the gasoline cars in the USA, some new and some 20 or more years old.

    Much better comparison would be between Model S and Toyota Camry 2012-2013 or Model S vs Audi A3 2012-2013...you get the picture.

    1. Re:Musk is comparing Apples to Oranges by salnikov · · Score: 1

      Camrys do not cost $80k.

  27. Stock price isn't falling due to fires by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    It's falling because the stock price got way ahead of the company's prospects, which Musk himself has previously acknowledged. The fires were only a catalyst that reminded investors of the systemic, secular, and event risk associated with any company, and in particular for a company that is valued for perfection by the markets.

  28. This confirms what I thought by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When dog bites a man, that's no story. When a man bites a dog, now there's a story.

    In an easy angle, you see that journalism could just be covering something that the public perceives as new.

    A more conspiracy angle would have the old guard threatened by electric cars and want the electric car to have negative press.

  29. Self abuse? by edibobb · · Score: 2

    Sure, there have been a few fires, but that's no reason for Elon Musk to lash his own back. Poor guy.

  30. Re:One big difference by NatasRevol · · Score: 1

    My guess? They won't be driving as fast by then and will actually have fewer fires.

    --
    There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
  31. Re:One big difference by smooth+wombat · · Score: 1

    Yeah, but don't tell that to the people who marked me flamebait for stating the obvious.

    --
    We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
  32. Re:Fraudulent employment numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    DEFEND THIS YOU LYING SCUMBAG

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/woman-hailed-president-obamacare-success-story-now-cant-afford-obamacare_767868.html

    "...Jessica Sanford started having problems, she was receiving letters from the Washington state health exchange," reports CNN. "The first letter telling her that tax credit was reduced, therefore, increasing the cost of her health care plan and the, take a look at this, then she received a letter just last week telling her that her tax credit had been taken away all together. Show you another document here, showing what the tax credit worked out to be... zero dollars according to this document that was provided to us by Jessica Sanford. She describes all of this as a roller coaster ride. Now she says she can't afford insurance in Washington state because of the new developments."

    DEFEND YOUR TYRANNY

  33. Media always the scapegoat by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

    It's the modern version of blame the messenger. Chris Rock said it best when addressing how people blame the media for the "portrayal" of race and crime - "When I go to the ATM money machine at night, I am not looking over my shoulder for the media."

    1. Re:Media always the scapegoat by korbulon · · Score: 2

      So you're saying there is a genuine, substantive story to report with these Tesla fires - enough to warrant all this coverage - and not some drummed-up panic designed to get eyeballs on websites? What then, in your estimation is the real issue in this particular case, if indeed the media is merely a reflection of an underlying reality?

    2. Re:Media always the scapegoat by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      The media doesn't evaluate stories based on some "deserved to be reported" scale. They report stories that they believe will interest their viewers. And Tesla has obvious interest since the company is always in the press, for both the good and bad.

    3. Re:Media always the scapegoat by korbulon · · Score: 2

      And there you have the key difference between your view and mine: you believe that journalism should be essentially a product, largely meant for consumption by its client base, while I believe (in my quixotic frame of mind, I admit), that journalism should - in its ideal form - be a service, meant to serve the public good.

      It's a shame that your view is far closer to reality than mine.

    4. Re:Media always the scapegoat by JoeyRox · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, but was anyone complaining when Tesla was getting so much "good" press, which was just as unwarranted as the "bad" press they're receiving now? Was Musk writing missives complaining about how much undeserved free press and advertising Tesla received?

      Ironically the press is much more balanced than crowds in this regard.

    5. Re:Media always the scapegoat by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "be a service, meant to serve the public good."

      Uh huh and why dont you define exactly what that is beyond - "The 'public good' is news about things I care about as opposed to news about things I dont care about".

      Only a fruitcake egomaniac thinks that ~they~ know what is ~really~ important.

    6. Re:Media always the scapegoat by korbulon · · Score: 1

      Completely agree with the "good" press assessment. Not so long ago I recall being force-fed (well, when screens are right in front of your nose, it's hard to look away) images of Musk on Bloomberg when he was their flavor-of-the-month, a real media darling. I suppose now that the novelty has worn thin, and he's lost a bit of that celebrity aura, not so much.

      They are rather fickle fuckers.

      But that is the thing, isn't it? We as a society have become utterly obsessed with celebrity and glamour and this notion of finding "rock-stars" in all manner of professional fields that we end up with this cycle of pumping people up and knocking them down. We want great people, but we want them to be flawed. We exalt people to great heights, but we don't mind if a few of them come crashing down. Is the media feeding off this desire, or are they feeding the desire? Probably both. Which is another way of saying: I don't know. All I know is that if the world was on fire, the media would quietly be rooting for the fire. There is little these days to distinguish journalism from other forms of entertainment.

    7. Re:Media always the scapegoat by CauseBy · · Score: 1

      Media isn't the messenger, it's the message-maker. The messenger is the newsstand operator, and nobody blames that guy.

      When media pushes a bullshit message, it's their fault and we are right to assign them blame. This is such a case.

    8. Re:Media always the scapegoat by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      When I go to the ATM money machine

      Shouldn't that be an ATMM money machine?

      Signed,
          the department of redundancy department.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    9. Re:Media always the scapegoat by Chuckstar · · Score: 1

      This is why I get annoyed when Musk goes on one of his whining rampages about some recent coverage he doesn't like. He's totally happy to be the center of attention when the coverage is positive (however out-of-scale it maybe be with the importance of his company). But when the coverage is negative... suddenly he's like a 4-year-old who dropped his ice cream cone.

      And the worst part is the Tesla fans who troll the internet forums to enforce the gospel.

  34. It's all about the money. by Valdrax · · Score: 1

    People are really bad at understanding statistics because the Mainstream Media purposely skews reporting to maintain current power structures.

    Not really. If you want to understand why the media reports on what it reports on how it reports on it, you just have to remember that all TV news companies are large, for-profit corporations. That means that the news is a product just like any other. You want a product that (a) sells to the most people (b) for the lowest cost. The true bias of journalism is lazy, greedy, self-interest.

    The reason why stories are low on research and fact-finding (aka "investigative journalism") is because of (b). The reason why some stations skew towards the emotional biases of one demographic or another is because of (a). The reason we get so much coverage of celebrities, sports, and "missing white girls" instead of international politics, finance, and science is because of (a) + (b). That's also the root of the behavior you mention of sportscasters cheering for a close game and whichever team is most popular.

    Fox News, MSBNC, the Drudge Report, and the Huffington Post all cater to their respective partisans, because partisans like to have their egos stroked with nothing but stories that confirm their own biases. It's a reliable revenue source. CNN acts like a toddler with ADHD because they think that appeals to millennials (and they simply just don't care anymore). And "fringe" journalism? That's just catering to a niche, like any other small competitor in a market.

    You want reliable journalism? Look for someone how isn't making a profit. The closest thing I can find to services that care about journalism is listener-funded NPR and billionaire-owned money sink newspapers. Facts just aren't profitable anymore.

    If Tesla gains enough 'momentum' and mainstream acceptance (industry is large enough to gain its own power brokers), you will start seeing sensational articles about how great the Tesla is.

    Pfft. Tesla gets plenty of free press in their favor. The problem is that no one likes a scandal quite like a scandal from someone who is popular. The "fires" thing is really the first major negative press Tesla has gotten since its inception. It's frankly just it's time in the ring.

    --
    If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    1. Re:It's all about the money. by kyrsjo · · Score: 2

      Not all TV news companies are for-profit corporations - take for example the BBC and their countless clones.

    2. Re:It's all about the money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That does not necessarily mean they do not have it in their best interests to maximize ratings. I imagine if nobody watched the BBC that funding would quickly disappear.

  35. Re:Fraudulent employment numbers by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

    You try implementing a universal software system and let us know how many problems it has out the door.

    --
    Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
  36. Admitting There's a Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    More like "Musk, while bullshitting the media, desperately scrambled to bandaid the problem". What is the fire rate per road mile of in-warranty cars? That's a fair metric.

    1. Re:Admitting There's a Problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That metric has actually been covered earlier in the thread, and it's *worse* than the per-car metric. Worse for gasoline-powered cars, that is.

      Ratio of Gasoline-powered Car Fires to Tesla Fires:
      Per Car: ~3.7:1
      Per Mile: ~4.6:1

      Are we going to move the goalposts again now?

  37. Yes, what are those numbers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But in their absence, you cannot just imply a problem with Teslas. You have the claim that they're more dangerous: YOU prove it.

  38. Re:Fraudulent employment numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Excuse me? WTF is a "universal software system"? Real question. What the fuck are you even talking about?

    This WWW site isn't really all that complex, yes there are a number of interfaces no doubt, but this is not rocket science.

    Oh and BTW why the fuck is any sort of WWW exchange even fucking necessary? Just require the citizen to provide proof of insurance on his tax return, any subsidy can be calculated there by the IRS the way most other tax related items are handled.

    The whole thing is a clusterfuck of mismanagement and beauracracy.

    But then again, hey this crowd is making up fraudulent census numbers to rig his re-election, using the IRS for political ends, this is straight up tyranny and all you lot around here just yawn and say 'stick it to the rich'. Just wait you fuckers, when the conservatives get the executive office back we intend to use these newly acquired powers to our fucking advantage.

    You fucking crypto fascists disgust me to no end.

  39. Re:One big difference by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

    How many of those 1 out of 1350 gasoline-powered cars are from low-income drivers who are driving cars which became unsafe many years ago? We already know that the 1 out of 6,333 Teslas that caught fire were new and driven by someone affluent enough to keep the car maintained.

    But let's try to match something similar like Tesla's fires versus Toyota Camry Fires due to defective door switches. There have been six complaints for the entire 830,000 vehicles produced and sold. This gives us figure of 1 out of 138,333 cars sold. So by Elon Musk's measure you would be safer in a 2012 Toyota Camry than a Tesla.

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  40. Ask Peter Rawlingson and Nick Sampson whats wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting how the the chief engineer and the chassis designer both resigned simultaneously. It's also interesting how the sample vehicle submitted to the NHTSA for crash testing was 800 lbs heavier than the production model. Its even more interesting that that Tesla said that using steel armor to protect the batteries would add 800 lbs to the weight of the car. I smell a scandal.

  41. Top 1% starts at $394000 by mbkennel · · Score: 1


    The top 1% is > $394,000. Given how right-skewed income distribution is, I think everybody in the 1% who isn't there only transiently can afford a Tesla.

    1. Re:Top 1% starts at $394000 by AaronW · · Score: 1

      I'm far from the 1% yet I had no problem affording a Tesla. It's more on how you manage your money. In my case putting every spare penny I had into paying off my mortgage made a huge difference, allowing me to pay it off quite early and not buying a more expensive house than I could afford.

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
  42. Re:Fraudulent employment numbers by mbkennel · · Score: 1


    Ah, so socialized medicine is evil---because it isn't enough socialism?

  43. PLEASE? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How many of these quarter million are $80k, new cars?

    Just sayin' because I've NEVER seen anything smoking on the side of the road that was under 4 years old.

    Is it right to count under-maintained Ford Escorts?

  44. Truth is irrelevant - journalism & justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    George Mason University runs a website, stats.org, that clearly shows that journalists are unqualified to report on anything that must be supported by facts (think about it). Today's news journalists must created divisive, polarizing, sensational, etc. reports to hold their job. Like the US Justice System, TRUTH is never a priority. And maybe that is why the US Justice System is equally incompetent on "judging" science and technology.

    1. Re:Truth is irrelevant - journalism & justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Truth has many faces, dumbshit. You can use entirely different words to describe what is essentially the same thing. Most people are aware of this and parse things accordingly. Some however still think that their viewpoint is the object "true" one, and so complain when their viewpoint is not represented.

  45. Re:Fraudulent employment numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why do you waste time maing a post and not even explain the point you are making?

    I mean really.

    You radical extremist Democrats are openly lying, breaking laws and pissing on the Constitution, fucking over generations of us, our economy, ruining our healthcare system, and you try and get by with some kind of inside joking and snide "haw haw haw" comments.

    Defend your policies and your actions socialist.

  46. No, no and again no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Gasolene tanks are NOT buried in the car, they're on the edge of it, defended by a thin bit of aluminium plate and plastic.

    They are, however, UNDERNEATH the car, so anyone trying to reach it standing by the side of the car will reach though almost the entire depth of the car before getting to the gas tank. Indeed, that's the problem: they're on the bottom far edge of the car open to puncturing.

    Just like your claim of the Tesla.

    Except the Tesla has thick armour-class steel protecting it from below and internal baffles.

    Completely unlike your gas tank.

    1. Re:No, no and again no. by immaterial · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up. This exact false claim came up and was corrected in the last thread on this subject. People seem to have some vague idea that their gas tanks are in some holy Invulnerable Protected Zone. There is no such place in a car. And I've never seen a tank that isn't on the underside, perfectly exposed to road debris (as are the fuel lines, generally).

    2. Re:No, no and again no. by Teancum · · Score: 1

      I've seen gas tanks on some pickup trucks that were mounted in the truck bed itself (especially for farm trucks which have some particularly large tanks), and I've owned a 4-door sedan that had the gasoline tank in the trunk part of the car (with only a piece of carpet between the tank and the cargo part of the trunk).

      None the less, I agree with your general sentiment that most gasoline tanks are mounted on the bottom of the vehicle. They are usually squeezed into whatever space can be found to put them into, and sometimes can be quite irregularly shaped as well. More importantly, their location is usually not determined by safety considerations so much as simply finding a place which isn't needed for creature comforts (like legroom or cargo space). That implies the rear seat in most cars is literally resting upon the gasoline tank or has that tank immediately behind those seats.

    3. Re:No, no and again no. by suutar · · Score: 1

      A possibly significant factor is that the gas tank is at the back of the vehicle, usually, rather than the front; running over debris is more likely to peg the engine than the tank. The Model S, on the other hand has batteries both front and rear. If they manage to double the battery energy density, I wouldn't be surprised if Tesla comes up with a vehicle design where the batteries are all in the rear.

      That said, the fact that even with the front end melted to the ground, the passenger compartment was fine makes me feel pretty safe.

  47. Tesla changes warranty to cover fire damage by bledri · · Score: 5, Interesting
    From Tesla's blog entry by Elon Musk:

    Third, to reinforce how strongly we feel about the low risk of fire in our cars, we will be amending our warranty policy to cover damage due to a fire, even if due to driver error. Unless a Model S owner actively tries to destroy the car, they are covered. Our goal here is to eliminate any concern about the cost of such an event and ensure that over time the Model S has the lowest insurance cost of any car at our price point. Either our belief in the safety of our car is correct and this is a minor cost or we are wrong, in which case the right thing is for Tesla to bear the cost rather than the car buyer.

    I think it is clear that the Tesla is more likely to have a fire if you hit something hard enough to puncture the vehicle's armor plating and pierce the battery pack. It's a specific mode of failure and I don't know how common of an event this will be in the long run. I also don't think it's as big of a deal as the media is making. It doesn't "explode" or unexpectedly burst into flames that engulf the passenger compartment. A cluster of events does not define a trend in my mind.

    I really like the low center of gravity, the balanced fore-aft weight distribution and the ridiculous amounts of trunk space the "skateboard" design allows. It makes for a great handling car, which improves safety. It also means huge crumble zones to absorb kinetic energy in a crash, which also improves safety. To me, it's a design trade-off. The real measure of the trade off will be whether people are safer, on average, or not. So far there have been no deaths or serious injuries, but the sample size and time frame is small for that to be really meaningful. But I'm hopeful, and if I could afford one, I'd buy one.

    --
    Some privacy policy Slashdot.
    1. Re:Tesla changes warranty to cover fire damage by Chirs · · Score: 1

      I think it is clear that the Tesla is more likely to have a fire if you hit something hard enough to puncture the vehicle's armor plating and pierce the battery pack.

      If my gasoline-power car hits something hard enough to puncture the fuel tank, it'll probably catch on fire too...

  48. Apples to Oranges by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems comparing the absolute number of gasoline fires per year against the absolute number of electric car fires per year is misleading since the ratios are not initially being compared. Even when the ratios are being compared it seems that the sense of scale might be a little off too. I would say the sample size is still pretty small for the Tesla S. Of course it would be interesting to see the numbers isolated to cars in the same price bracket compared as well.

    Maybe the people that can afford the car are better drivers or they don't drive during rush hour or they drive the car less miles and thus expose the car to less chance of accident/fire.

  49. Push an 'over-the-air update'... by acidblue · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Tesla is about to push an 'over-the-air update' to its vehicles' air suspension that will create more ground clearance at highway speeds"

    That just sounds awesome. To be able to tune something on a car without taking it into a dealership or have a mechanic (including yourself) touch the thing is just cool.

  50. over-the-air update... by musixman · · Score: 1

    Telsa will release a "over-the-air update' to its vehicles' air suspension"....
    Quick iterations is why this company will be so successful imo.

    1. Re:over-the-air update... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, I don't want my car manufacturer changing my car ride whenever they feel like it.

  51. Definitely not your normal car company by Quila · · Score: 1

    we have requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conduct a full investigation as ... if something is discovered that would result in a material improvement in occupant fire safety, we will immediately apply that change to new cars and offer it as a free retrofit to all existing cars

    Wow, not running from a recall as is usual, but actively inviting one.

    1. Re:Definitely not your normal car company by js3 · · Score: 1

      we have requested that the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration conduct a full investigation as ... if something is discovered that would result in a material improvement in occupant fire safety, we will immediately apply that change to new cars and offer it as a free retrofit to all existing cars

      Wow, not running from a recall as is usual, but actively inviting one.

      You don't need NHTSA to start a recall. Most car companies do recalls without having a NHTSA investigation

      --
      did you forget to take your meds?
    2. Re:Definitely not your normal car company by Quila · · Score: 1

      Normally when NHTSA tries to start one the manufacturers do everything possible to avoid it. They even avoid doing it manyally. It's that old Fight Club equation.

      Tesla is saying "We don't think we need a recall, but please investigate and we promise to do whatever is necessary." However, in earlier days the ride height adjustment would have been a recall already.

      Apparently Musk forgot to watch Fight Club.

  52. Re:Fraudulent employment numbers by SecurityTheatre · · Score: 1

    LOL.

    +1 hillarious

  53. Too much remote control by Animats · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Tesla is about to push an 'over-the-air update' to its vehicles' air suspension that will create more ground clearance at highway speeds.

    Now that scares me. The suspension can be updated remotely? What could possibly go wrong? Just how good is the security on that? Who has access to the keys? Are you sure? How are the download servers secured? Is the update system protected against cut-and-paste attacks?

    That kind of update could be used as an assassination weapon.

    When Tesla was talking about automatic driving, I suggested that there must be a second processor, with completely different software, checking the main system for sanity (like "not approaching obstacle at high speed") and able to force a stop. The backup system should have its program in ROM, and changing that program should require breaking seals and physically plugging in a new program module.

    Flight control software for airliners works like that. For the Airbus line, the backup software was written by a different team for a different kind of CPU in a different programming language, to avoid any possibility of a common mode failure.

    1. Re:Too much remote control by AaronW · · Score: 2

      Some of the cars have active air suspension which is able to raise and lower the car. It is controllable by the touch screen. Normally when driving at highway speeds the car will lower itself. They have disabled this and promised that in a future software update that this feature will be user configurable as to whether or not the car lowers itself.

      I have received several software updates to my car and they have added some major features from those updates. They also have changed things like the last software update makes the creep mode behave more smoothy (I have the creep feature disabled myself).

      --
      This post is encrypted twice with ROT-13. Documenting or attempting to crack this encryption is illegal.
    2. Re:Too much remote control by ericwfrost · · Score: 0

      Exactly what I was going to say. Over the air updates sound more scary to me than the fires. Eric

      --
      The Magazine for MapPoint - http://www.mp2kmag.com
  54. A theater on fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't the media's over hyped portrayal of this electric car fire thing the very definition of yelling fire in a crowded theater? Aren't the media doing this to encourage people to do a certain action that is against their own best interest? Is helping produce more CO2 emissions not hurting everybody?

    1. Re:A theater on fire by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't the media's over hyped portrayal of this electric car fire thing the very definition of yelling fire in a crowded theater? Aren't the media doing this to encourage people to do a certain action that is against their own best interest? Is helping produce more CO2 emissions not hurting everybody?

      Reporting that there have been three vehicle fires and there will be an investigation sounds legitimate to me.

      Not reporting because it might in some weird indirect way affect CO2 emissions would be wrong, wrong, wrong. I would never trust that news source again.

    2. Re:A theater on fire by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      It is okay to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater if there actually is a fire.

  55. Re:Fraudulent employment numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm just curious, what exactly is hillarious?

    This?

    http://townhall.com/tipsheet/guybenson/2013/11/19/cms-official-60-to-70-percent-of-obamacares-web-system-still-hasnt-been-built-n1749461

    "REP. CORY GARDNER: Well how much do we have to build today, still? What do we need to build? 50 percent? 40 percent? 30 percent?

    HENRY CHAO: I think it's, uh, just an approximation, we're probably sitting somewhere between 60 and 70 percent because we still have to build...

    GARDNER: Wait, 60 or 70 percent that needs to be built, still?

    CHAO: Because we still have to build the payment systems to make payments to insurers in January.

    GARDNER: Let me get this correct. Sixty to 70 percent of Healthcare.gov still needs to be built?

    CHAO: It's not really about Healthcare.gov -- it's the federally-facilitated marketplace.

    GARDNER: The entire system that the American people are being required to rely upon...

    CHAO: Healthcare.gov -- the online application, verification, determination, plan compare, getting enrolled, generating the enrollment transaction -- that's 100 percent there.

    GARDNER: But the entire system is 60 to 70 percent away from being complete. "

    Is that what is fucking hilarious?

    60-70% of the building still has to be done, including the payment system, which is crucial, because, see, without a payment system, you can't actually purchase insurance.

    They've got 11 days to build 60-70% of the site, after not being able to do so after 3 1/2 years. And then, after they've built the remaining 60-70%, they expect, best case scenario, to have it working for 80% of users.

    Even assuming they manage this, which, based on their history of stumblefuck bumbling and hapless pratfall incompetence, they won't -- What An Adventure it will be to enter your credit card information into Obama's website!

    Yep, real fucking hilarious.

  56. I had a car fire once by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It was in a $2000 POS Ford Escort.

    I was driving down the highway when I smelled smoke.

    I got out, saw fire under the hood. I put out the fire very quickly. Had to get towed home due to melted wires.

    Fire was caused by some stupid rodent packing nuts into the air cleaner. The nuts went down the manifold heat riser and caught fire on the exhaust manifold.

    I guess this kind of fire would not happen in a Tesla. It has no hot place to put nuts in.

    1. Re:I had a car fire once by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Slashdot is not the right forum to tell everyone about your hot nuts.

  57. Micawber said it by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    You could be earning 20 million, but have outgoings of 19 million in alimony, 900,000 in mortgage payments and 90,000 in student loans.

    In short, income is only half the story.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    1. Re:Micawber said it by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      If someone makes $394k a year (never mind 20 million), he can almost certainly afford a Tesla. He might not choose to buy one because he prioritizes other things (such as a house with a $900,000 mortgage) but that's his decision.

      It's POSSIBLE he has a great number of compulsory financial obligations (like alimony and student loans) that make him unable to afford one, but unlikely.

    2. Re:Micawber said it by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      He might have had those commitments before the Tesla was invented. Or are you saying he should have put some aside, just in case someone invents teh aw3some?

      In any case, you'd be surprised how often high earners are leveraged up the hilt. They have double platinum with diamond knobs on cards with huge limits - and they use them.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Micawber said it by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      I'm not saying he should do anything. I'm saying he could. If he wanted a Tesla he could sell his mansion and move into a smaller place. He can afford one, but he doesn't want it that badly.

      Yes, I know high income people often overspend themselves. That's their choice. They can afford a Tesla, but they prioritize other things.

  58. Re:One big difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    6 complaints doesn't necessary equal 6 occurrences of fire. Again, keep changing perspective until the view suits your argument. Yawn.

  59. One New Car I Know of the Recently Exploded by Schlacht · · Score: 2

    I wish Michael Hastings had been driving a Tesla. Take one look at what happened to him and what constitutes 'car fire' takes on a whole new meaning. That was a late model high-end car German engineered gasoline powered automobile. If it had been a Tesla we'd still have him writing hardcore news for us.

    --
    rm -rf ms/*
    1. Re:One New Car I Know of the Recently Exploded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If it had been a Tesla, whoever killed him would have used Tesla's Over The Air capabilities to do the same thing.

  60. Re:One big difference by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    So by Elon Musk's measure you would be safer in a 2012 Toyota Camry than a Tesla.

    You'd certainly have very a low risk of catching a venereal disease.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  61. Welcome to the Mad Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ford and Audi say, "Welcome to the Club!"

  62. DO NOT WANT by GameboyRMH · · Score: 1

    I'm a Tesla S owner and I don't want this OTA update to compromise my car's handling. I can avoid large pieces of debris on the highway myself TYVM. I'll be less likely to roll the car while doing so with less ride height.

    Just kidding! But what if I wasn't?

    --
    "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
  63. I feel the need - the need for fiery speed! by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    Turbo thrusters on 11, BatKid!

    That's a feature, not a bug.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
    1. Re:I feel the need - the need for fiery speed! by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

      seriously, though, we get a few hundred car and truck fires on I-5 every year. Let alone the other highways.

      Why should Tesla cars be exempt from that?

      --
      -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  64. How about other EVs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about other EVs? Nissan has about 4 times as many Leafs on the road worldwide (~80k vs ~20k), and the only reference I can find to a fire was one that was destroyed in a forest fire in Colorado. Interestingly, while the car itself was burnt to a crisp, the battery pack supposedly remained "structurally intact." What is Tesla doing worse than Nissan? Is it just the relative size/capacity of the battery packs? Different chemistry? Structural protection? Not enough data points to be statistically significant yet?

    http://insideevs.com/a-seriously-burned-out-nissan-leaf/
    http://www.torquenews.com/1083/why-does-tesla-model-s-catch-fire-crashes-not-chevy-volt-and-nissan-leaf
    http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/business/tsunami-reveals-durability-of-nissans-leaf.html?_r=0

  65. He misses the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He's not in trouble because his cars caught fire. He's in trouble because he designed the Tesla S like a Ford Pinto, with the battery bank in an unacceptably vulnerable location.

    The fact that they are offering a software update that increases ride height is more or less an admission that they knew or should have known their product was dangerous.

    1. Re:He misses the point by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Unlike the Pinto, it never exploded in low-speed collisions, and it had a quarter-inch metal plate between its fuel source and danger. Your own car wouldn't handle a spike impaling its tank nearly so well, nor would you have had as much time to safely pull over or have a car left afterwards because gasoline & oil aren't as easy to contain once punctured as a battery is.

      The fuel source in a Tesla is better armored than practically any other mass-produced car on the market. I think they're just being overly cautious rather than "admitting" danger; any other car with a similar ride height would have experienced far more catastrophic failure hitting a spike at highway speeds like that.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
    2. Re:He misses the point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shoving a spike through my gas tank is not a guaranteed fire. An environmental incident, maybe, but certainly not a guaranteed fire.

      Puncturing a LiIon battery is a fire almost every time.

    3. Re:He misses the point by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Shoving a spike through my gas tank is not a guaranteed fire. An environmental incident, maybe, but certainly not a guaranteed fire.

      Puncturing a LiIon battery is a fire almost every time.

      Maybe (though I'm skeptical), but no one has died from a punctured battery in a Tesla yet due to the firewall design. Each cell is wrapped in a gel that reacts in the presence of fire to cool down the pack and to harden into a material with low conductivity to heat. You can read more about the very interesting design here.

      Sadly, you can't say the same for a gas tank, and punctured tank fires can get very energetic, very fast. Just ask the families of any number of Jeep Grand Cherokee owners, thanks to an unshielded plastic tank anchored close to the rear.

      It's not impossible for an electric vehicle to catch fire due to the battery, but there's less that burns easily without gas & oil, and a more careful design like Tesla's allows you to safely bring the car to the side of the road and exist first. The only people to have died in an incident where an electric vehicle's battery system caught fire most likely did so from the force of impact.

      Hell, that's another nod for Tesla, because one of the three fires that got so much press involved some drunk idiot driving through a concrete wall into a tree. The man walked away just fine. (Or more ran away to flee the cops and asked Tesla to expedite the replacement. However, being bought by total douches is no sign your car isn't safe.)

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  66. You may have heard this, Elon... by trailerparkcassanova · · Score: 1

    but here it is anyway: don't start an argument with a man who buys ink by the barrel.

  67. Re:One big difference by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You mean like Musk's comparing his new car's fire history with every single gas powered vehicle on the road?

  68. Re:One big difference by Bill_the_Engineer · · Score: 1

    Two types of burning sensations prevented!

    --
    These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
  69. Statistics and dman statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Musk himself is distorting the true number of vehicle fires somewhat. As a vehicle ages, the chance of a fire, of course, increases dramatically... Thus, he should be comparing the number of vehicle fires per ICE car built in the last three years to the number per Tesla vehicle, not using ICE figures that go back decades... He is comparing apples to guavas...

    1. Re:Statistics and dman statistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Does it? Do you actually have evidence that the chance of a fire increases dramatically with the age of the vehicle, or is it just supposition on your part?

      Someone else did the calculation of fires per vehicle mile driven, and the Tesla came out ahead *again* by a 4.6:1 ratio. (That's worse for gasoline-powered vehicles than the 3.7:1 ratio calculated on a per-car basis.)

  70. hence NPR, BBC, CBC, etc. by Chirs · · Score: 1

    I firmly believe that there should be publicly-funded journalism for exactly this reason.

    At its best, it can take on issues that are important but not profitable enough to interest for-profit "news" organizations.

  71. Pouring oil to the cataclysm... by denzacar · · Score: 4, Funny

    oil/fluid leaks dripping on to cataclysmic converters...

    Well, there's your problem.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Pouring oil to the cataclysm... by nblender · · Score: 1

      I always thought they were Catholic Converters... huh.

    2. Re:Pouring oil to the cataclysm... by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      Leaking gas lines, oil/fluid leaks dripping on to cataclysmic converters

      That caught me too, but there's no point in talking to an AC.

      Now, I admit to giving approximately 2/3 of a poor shit about cars, but I do have a reasonably good idea of how they generally go together. And of the small number that I've looked at the underside of, the large boxes in the exhaust system, which include the catalytic converter and muffler (I forget the Americese - silencer?), they've all been recessed into the floor panels, with the fuel line running forwards separately in a different recess. So, short of someone bodging up a home made fuel line in the engine bay, how the fuck is the fuel going to get into a position to leak onto the converter. Even supposing that the exterior gets hot enough to reach the ignition point of the fuel.

      My bullshit detector is flashing amber on this one. It's a bit of an obvious design flaw which I would have expected to go out with 1960s model-T death traps. Post Nader, y'know.

      That said, my first car was a 1960s one. A Volvo 'Amazon' 122S : pretty much the first production car world wide with the then-revolutionary seat belts. Not that that is why I brought it though.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  72. Re:Ask Peter Rawlingson and Nick Sampson whats wro by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're full of shit, since production Teslas do contain that armor plating. It's 1/4" aluminum plating, which by rule of thumb is roughly equivalent to 1/8" of steel plating in terms of strain resisted, at 1/3 of the weight (reduced mass means reduced force!).

    An extra 800 lbs would simply increase the force of the crash.

  73. What a dirt bag dum arse by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, he compares 1/4 million gasoline fires in millions and millions of cars that have been on the road for decades to his vehicle that can be counted on your hands and toes.

    He's scared! Very scared as this will do more harm than the $$$ lose in the millions each month.

  74. Ah, Frank Zappa... by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

    You could pee on the fire to put it out if it didn't hurt so much.

    --
    Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
  75. Re:I tried to have a car fire once by JamieIanMacgregor · · Score: 1

    So that's how it's done? I had an escort 1300 flat head engine in my Anglia, I tried to blow it up when I got a 1600 to replace it with... I couldn't, valves were bouncing and tires smoking but the thing wouldn't die, I ended up getting an oil jet in one of the cylinders while driving normally some weeks later and figured that was as good a time as any to discard it.

  76. 3/20 wtf? by Beerdood · · Score: 1

    I can't help notice the irony of the GP posting "People are really bad at understanding statistics.", yet you use a random stat (3/20 Tesla Accidents had an auto-fire) to make it sound like the Tesla Model S is "more likely to catch fire". Kind of ignores the ridiculously small sample size, the fact all 3 cars were going extremely high speeds (maybe sports cars in general have higher accident rates?), or that fire-related problems are less likely with a more detailed on board computer etc... And where's this 20 coming from? (honest question, I don't see anything in the links - are there only 20 reported Tesla S accidents to date?) . There were only 3 fires in the Tesla Model S... ever! You can't make a statement with odds that low.

    --
    Global warming and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking number of pirates - Gospel of the FSM
    1. Re:3/20 wtf? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Sure you can. 20 is a perfectly reasonable sample size. To a statistician, 40 is practically infinite.

      BUT you have to actually do statistics. 3/20 isn't a statistic no matter what the common corruption of the word is.

  77. These fires ARE a big deal... by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 2

    ...but in a good way. If Musk's figures are correct, the headlines should be saying, "Gas-powered cars catch fire 4.7x more often than Teslas".

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  78. More lift? Depends by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    If the rear of the car is raised more than the front of the car, there may actually be less lift than before the update.

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  79. Calculating safety statistics by GPS+Pilot · · Score: 1

    Miles driven before incident is the measure that's used

    An even better measure would be "number of incidents per mile driven" (lower is better) or its reciprocal, "miles driven per incident" (higher is better).

    --
    That that is is that that that that is not is not.
  80. I stand completely behind Tesla on this! by Greyfox · · Score: 0

    Having a couple cars catch on fire out of the number that are on the road is no big deal! Cars catch on fire every day! Why look at this Tesla right here, it's a masterpiOH GOD I'M BURNING! WHY?!

    --

    I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?

  81. Electrical fire by BringsApples · · Score: 1

    How funny would it be to see a smear campaign commercial:

    Thomas Edison rolls up in his 2013 Tesla whatever, gets out and hooks some wires from the car to Topsy the elephant, then gets back to the car and starts it. The elephant shakes until it falls over and catches fire, all the while, Edison's in the car revving it more and more, laughing hysterically. Fade to black. White text appears: Think of the children!

    --
    Politics; n. : A religion whereby man is god.
  82. None of that $19mil was on a car? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? What the hell were they spending it on, then? And why no car?

  83. Problem admitted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Musk claims in the text there is no problem, BUT he also describes his solution. Describing a solution means admitting the existance of a problem

  84. Doesn't change my view by limbodog · · Score: 1

    Nothing I've seen in these 3 fires makes me want a Tesla any less. The people involved in those accidents all got out completely unharmed and, as far as I know, still praising their cars.

  85. How many expensive cars on fire? by salnikov · · Score: 1

    The right question to ask how many new gasoline cars (less than 1 year old) and price tag $50-80k catch a fire. Who gives a damn about old GM pickup truck bought by illegal alien for $100 catching a fire?