Slashdot Mirror


Tesla Model 3 Achieves NHTSA's 'Lowest Probability' of Injury Ever (thedrive.com)

In a blog post on Monday, Tesla said that the Model 3 has been deemed to have the lowest probability of occupant injury than any vehicle ever tested by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). The Drive reports: Since 1979, the regulatory body has implemented the New Car Assessment Program (NCAP) which, through a series of tests, ultimately produces a rating for a new-to-market vehicle based on how well it performs in a variety of safety-related tests. Over time the test has evolved to assess the injury to occupants based on data gathered for front, side, and rollover crashes. During the NHTSA's previous tests of Tesla vehicles, the Model S and Model X, respectively, became the two vehicles with the lowest probability for injury, outpacing all other automakers. The Model 3 has now widened that gap as it takes the new number-one position on the leaderboard for the safest overall vehicle for occupants.

The California-based auto manufacturer acknowledges the car's low center of gravity as a major factor in its gracious performance in rollover tests. Similar to The Model 3 places its heaviest component, the battery pack, into the floor, so this helps improve the overall stability and rigidity of the car, making it perform excellently in rollover crashes. Additionally, the automaker gives a subtle nod to its engineering team for their design of the vehicle's crumple zones. Working in conjunction with airbags placed in the front of the vehicle and at the occupant's knees, the Model 3 was able to safely control the deceleration of passengers in frontal crash tests. The NHTSA's assessment involved the Model 3 Long Range Rear-Wheel Drive variant, however, Tesla states that it believes other trims will receive similar results when tested.

316 comments

  1. Shorters by Joce640k · · Score: 1, Troll

    Keep shorting that stock, guys. We love watching you do it.

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Can't believe anyone can look at Tesla's stock price chart and mock shortsellers. No one gives a shit if your car is 0.3% safer than a Toyota when the Camry costs 30 grand less.

      Tesla lives and dies on Musk's cult of personality, and his public image hasn't exactly been doing well lately.

    2. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Donâ(TM)t believe everything you read, their history is checkered:
      https://www.wired.com/story/tesla-model-s-crash-test-safety-iihs/
      https://www.torquenews.com/1083/how-tesla-model-s-narrowly-missed-poor-crash-test-rating

    3. Re:Shorters by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tesla lives and dies on Musk's cult of personality

      No. Tesla lives and dies off its fundamentals. And those fundamentals are the 4th highest selling car in the US by volume, highest by revenue, highest selling car (by volume and revenue) by a US manufacturer, overwhelmingly positive reviews, top notch safety, and margin expected to be already up to about 15% (and growing) this quarter, production rates growing faster than Panasonic can keep up with cells, with ample reservations (Tesla hasn't even opened sales to most of its global market), SR not being available yet, non-PUP not being available yet, air suspension not being available yet, tow package not available yet, leases (how most people acquire cars) not available yet, only one model year old (most people prefer to wait for at least 2-3 years old) and surrounded by FUD, sparse store network, no advertising budget, and about a dozen things.

      Tesla's fundamentals are rocking.

      There's this common notion that Tesla has a "Musk premium". Quick question: whenever you hear TSLA bulls talking about Tesla, are they predominantly talking about how awesome Musk is? No, of course not; they're talking about how awesome the company and its products are. Tesla's value is as high as it is because TSLA bulls love its fundamentals, and these fundamentals exist with or without Musk. Contrary to this popular belief, Musk is generally a drain on Tesla's stock price, because he's such a polarizing figure who's always saying polarizing things. We like having him at the helm because we like his aggressive moat-bridging strategies, but he is not a boost to the stock price. Wall Street would love it if he packed his bags and moved to Mars and left JB in charge of the company (yes, there would be a short term freakout, as always happens when there's change and uncertainty, but then the story would go back to the fundamentals - without the distractions of random tweets)

      --
      "Close the door! What, were you born in a barn?" -- Police chief, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    4. Re:Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I just... WOW. Tesla trades on its fundamentals? Are you kidding me? Its cash flow negative, has a sky high PE, and has a huge load of convertible debt maturing that isn't going to reach its conversion price, resulting in either the issuance of more stock, or rolling over of the debt (in a rising rate environment, not a great plan). You don't even understand what "fundamentals" means. Tesla trades on many things, but its fundamentals is unequivocally not one of them.

    5. Re:Shorters by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      Considering the stock is under the price it was 4 years ago and the overall market is up over 40% since then, I would say the short sellers are doing pretty well.

    6. Re:Shorters by Sique · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes, TSLA currently trades at its lowest level since April 2018. But tell you what, GM does also, and Ford trades even lower than that. So whatever the Shorteners are trading, they would gained the same by shortening GM, and they would actually be better off, had they shortened Ford.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    7. Re:Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Musk is actually encouraging the short sellers because he wants to take it private and buy it himself. To accomplish this he is driving the price down. He’s doing a disservice to shareholders, but the cult of musk people don’t get it: He doesn’t want them to own even their tiny slice of his company and is thus abrogating his fiduciary duty.

    8. Re:Shorters by JaredOfEuropa · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The demand for Tesla vehicles is not going to be an issue for the foreseeable future. The "fundamental" issues are supply (can they source or manufacture enough batteries, something many EV makers struggle with), and manufacturing (can they make these cars fast enough, reliably, without running at a loss). At a glance, the answer to those questions would seem to be Yes, and that hasn't changed. What has changed is Musk tweeting some rubbish and going one toke over the line, no fundamental stuff.

      The big worry, as GP pointed out, is Tesla's current debt structure and cash flow. Not necessarily an issue if your stockholders have an unwavering trust in the company and the way it's being run, but Musk seems to be doing everything in his power to shake that trust.

      --
      If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
    9. Re:Shorters by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tesla is eventually going to run out of rich people to sell their vanity EV to.

      Sure, just like Apple ran out of people to sell their vanity phones and laptops to!

      --
      No sig today...
    10. Re:Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SEC will soon investigate on SEC practice which favors the short-seller and the problem will be solved.

    11. Re:Shorters by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      You guys are so out of touch with reality. The fact is only 0.001% of the people on this planet can even afford at Tesla. You guys need to travel out of your affluent areas. The world is a much different place than the one you live in.

    12. Re:Shorters by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      Not sure what you are talking about. Tesla is trading under what it was in 2014, GM and Ford are terrible stocks as well. The auto business is a terrible business to invest in. I am sure the Tesla shorts are doing just fine, which is why Musk has his panties in such a twist.

    13. Re:Shorters by Joce640k · · Score: 2, Informative

      No one gives a shit if your car is 0.3% safer than a Toyota when the Camry costs 30 grand less.

      Really?

      You haven't been paying attention.

      PS: It's not just safety, Teslas excel in almost every other way. They're fast becoming the 'Apple' of the auto industry - nobody thinks Apple are good value for money but Apple is now the biggest company on the planet thanks to selling "overpriced" goods.

      --
      No sig today...
    14. Re:Shorters by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Then stop pretending you are buying Teslas because they are "green" and just admit you are just another corporate consumerist whore. And take your corporate shilling somewhere else.

    15. Re:Shorters by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      While true, their number is rapidly growing as East Asia gains affluence.

    16. Re:Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The 'Apple' of the auto industry? Apple has always been known for being stylish. Have you actually seen a Model 3 in person? Good lord, they're ugly. They look sort of like a chubby Kia Forte. And I'm not talking the new ones where they've started putting at least a little effort in to the styling. I'm talking the mark 1 from a decade ago. Tesla has always had issues with their styling IMO, the only good looking car they made was the roadster, and that was built on a Lotus. But the Model 3 is properly ugly. We're talking like Chevy Aztec ugly.

    17. Re: Shorters by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Interesting

      You think only 700,000 people can afford a $40,000 vehicle?

      Well you're obviously retarded.

    18. Re:Shorters by Joce640k · · Score: 2

      Apple's hitting a limit because they put the price up every time.

      Tesla is the opposite. Each generation of Teslas is cheaper than before.

      --
      No sig today...
    19. Re:Shorters by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      I just... WOW

      I've seen far more relevant responses to getting ones ass handed to them but that's the great thing about being a dumbass anonymous shill, eh? ;)

    20. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must be joking. Every Tesla generation is CHEAPER? Only the rich can afford a Tesla you dunce

    21. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Crap. You beat me to it!

    22. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Like anyone knows who Type44Q is. Anonymous in disguise.

    23. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You haven't priced cars recently.

    24. Re:Shorters by Sique · · Score: 0

      Tesla was at $236 on 10th October 2014 and is at $250 today. That looks like an increase to me since 2014. Ford was at $14 then and is at $9.20 today. This does not look so much like an increase to me.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    25. Re:Shorters by LazarusQLong · · Score: 1

      Also, and this is important, NHTSA does not post 'percentages' of safety! You get stars. 1 - 5. Tesla scores 5, so do lots of other car manufacturers. Tesla/Musk always says lying bullshit like this to pump up sales. It used to be illegal back when we had 'truth in advertising' laws, which the republicans gutted back in the 80's. These days it is just Musk lying as usual!

      --
      "Governments have been dominated by the corporate entities and citizens have ceased to matter in public policy" true in
    26. Re:Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $1200 is a little different than $45k+

    27. Re:Shorters by LazarusQLong · · Score: 1

      No, it is not. Where did you get that BS from? Here are the best selling vehicles so far in America: https://www.businessinsider.co... Note, Tesla not even in the top ten.

      --
      "Governments have been dominated by the corporate entities and citizens have ceased to matter in public policy" true in
    28. Re: Shorters by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      Another person out of touch with reality. What Tesla is $40k? Technocrats. You guys need to get out an travel and see the world. The vast majority of the planet lives in poverty. You guys sit in your office jobs and think everyone can just go out and buy a $65,000+ car, and a charger to go with their single family home in the suburbs. It would be amusing if it weren't so pathetic.

    29. Re: Shorters by LazarusQLong · · Score: 2

      order a $40,000 one, and post the date you make the order. then post the date they deliver it. If the two are closer together than 3 months, I will pay your car payment for those three months.

      --
      "Governments have been dominated by the corporate entities and citizens have ceased to matter in public policy" true in
    30. Re:Shorters by ne1av1cr · · Score: 1

      I'm just looking this up and having trouble with Tesla's PE ratio. Ameritrade isn't showing it at all (or I'm looking in the wrong place) Nasdaq has it listed as predicted negative then positive? https://www.nasdaq.com/symbol/... Ford's is 9?

    31. Re: Shorters by LazarusQLong · · Score: 1

      exactly, these idiots live in silicon valley, make over $100K/year, are single and think a tesla is affordable for the average American. The average household in America makes like $60K/year, do you think it is wise to spend 66% of your before tax income on a car???

      --
      "Governments have been dominated by the corporate entities and citizens have ceased to matter in public policy" true in
    32. Re:Shorters by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      These people are just Tesla fanboys. They aren't rational and just cherry pick some goofy stat that Musk spits out on Twitter to convince themselves that the average person can afford a $65,000+ car. Completely out of touch with reality.

    33. Re: Shorters by 110010001000 · · Score: 0

      That is a common malady here on Slashdot. People here live in a bubble. They think there is a huge market for $65,000+ cars, and $1,000+ phones. Eventually you run out of people to sell shiny things to. And it ain't doing nothing for the environment. Just high-end consumerism to fulfill their pathetic lives.

    34. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think only 700,000 people can afford a $40,000 vehicle?

      Well you're obviously retarded.

      And just who has gotten one for only $40k in the first place?

    35. Re:Shorters by 110010001000 · · Score: 2

      Ford is a terrible stock to own, as are all automakers. You shouldn't be investing in any of them. It is a terrible industry and you can't afford to lose your money.

    36. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So you are saying it is Prius ugly. Another virtue car.

    37. Re:Shorters by LazarusQLong · · Score: 1

      thank you for the response. I always wonder where these idiots get their info because any short google search shows their stats to be completely made up.

      --
      "Governments have been dominated by the corporate entities and citizens have ceased to matter in public policy" true in
    38. Re:Shorters by LazarusQLong · · Score: 1

      teslas are not the highest selling car by volume or by any other statistic. Here is another link for you. showing actual sales BY VOLUME in the USA: https://www.reuters.com/articl...

      --
      "Governments have been dominated by the corporate entities and citizens have ceased to matter in public policy" true in
    39. Re:Shorters by Sique · · Score: 1

      Then why pick Tesla to mock and to short, if Ford would be a much more rewarding target?

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    40. Re: Shorters by c6gunner · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Another person out of touch with reality. What Tesla is $40k?

      The Model 3. But we've already established that you're a liar, so I don't expect you to acknowledge that fact. No, in your world every Tesla costs 50 bazillion dollars.

      You guys need to get out an travel and see the world. The vast majority of the planet lives in poverty.

      I'm actually posting from a third world country at the moment.

      You guys sit in your office jobs and think everyone can just go out and buy a $65,000+ car

      Nah, we just aren't retarded enough to believe that only 700,000 people can afford to do so.

    41. Re:Shorters by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Because smug Ford owners don't come on here constantly shilling for Ford and try to convince us that buying a Ford is somehow "green". As an individual, you shouldn't be shorting any stock, including Tesla.

    42. Re:Shorters by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      They get it from Musk on Twitter, and on electrek and onTeslerati websites. They are just people in a echo chamber convincing themselves that somehow $65,000+ electric cars are going to save the planet. Mostly young technocrats with excess money and small brains.

    43. Re: Shorters by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      The Model 3 is not $40k. You are simply ignorant. So you can go away now.

    44. Re: Shorters by c6gunner · · Score: 3, Informative

      The Model 3 is not $40k. You are simply ignorant.

      Corect, the base Model 3 is actually $35,000 but I was trying to be generous to you.

      Tell me more about how only 700,000 people "in teh whole wide worlds!" can afford to buy one, oh wise and completely unignorant retard! I'm sure that the 1,200,000 Americans who made over $500,000 last year would get a great laugh out of that one.

    45. Re:Shorters by magzteel · · Score: 1

      No. Tesla lives and dies off its fundamentals. And those fundamentals are the 4th highest selling car in the US by volume, highest by revenue, highest selling car (by volume and revenue) by a US manufacture

      None of this makes any sense. Where did you get this nonsense from?

    46. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apple's top end phone is $1k, not $400.

    47. Re: Shorters by c6gunner · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nobody; the rich customers are snapping up all of them with extra features, at a premium. The fact that Tesla is unable to make enough vehicles to meet demand is a completely separate thing from how many people can afford the base model.

    48. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You could just Google "Tesla best selling car" and read the CNN or Bloomberg articles posted within the last week.
      The clam is they're the best selling luxury car thus year, and while I agree that it's a very debatable claim, they are definitely giving the industry heartburn.

      Hint- Rei is our resident Tesla fanboy, and 1100100100 is the resident Tesla Short with an obvious hatred of Musk. Don't take either of them at face value.

    49. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They publish both a star rating, and a Survivability percent. Both of which can be found at nhtsa.gov if you're having trouble locating a source.

    50. Re: Shorters by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Um, no.

      Where does it say that?

      --
      No sig today...
    51. Re: Shorters by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      That is a common malady here on Slashdot. People here live in a bubble. They think there is a huge market for $65,000+ cars,

      Right now there's certainly more demand that Tesla can fill, so... moot.

      --
      No sig today...
    52. Re:Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That was May, now find September data.

    53. Re:Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rei said:

      [...] the 4th highest selling car in the US by volume [...]

      Your source says:

      These are the 20 best-selling cars and trucks in America in 2018
      Brian Pascus Aug. 20, 2018, 9:44 AM

      Lol, way to try using an article from two months ago (long before this quarter's production numbers were announced) that doesn't even measure the same thing, to refute a claim about current production numbers of sedans. Here's a better source from six days ago.

    54. Re:Shorters by haruchai · · Score: 1

      "You guys are so out of touch with reality. The fact is only 0.001% of the people on this planet can even afford at Tesla."

      At many times throughout the past century the same could have been said of cars in general yet there are ~2 billion today - and STILL plenty of people "out of you affluent areas" who can't afford ANY car.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    55. Re: Shorters by haruchai · · Score: 2

      "They think there is a huge market for $65,000+ cars, and $1,000+ phones. Eventually you run out of people to sell shiny things to. And it ain't doing nothing for the environment. Just high-end consumerism to fulfill their pathetic lives."

      The trickle-down from expensive phones brought instant telecommunications to billions who mostly still don't have electricity and the demand for solar panels from those high-end consumerists brought the price down enough that many of those same people living outside the bubble can afford small panels to power necessities, from disconnected villages in India to nomadic herders in Mongolia.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    56. Re:Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I care. That's one of the reasons I bought one. Also, your math is a tad bit off. You might want to check that next time you mouth off.

      A fully loaded Camry is about $37K. My model 3 was $50K but came with a $7500 tax credit. So a net of $42.5K, or a premium of about $5.5K over a Camry. Add in the money I'll save on gas, conservatively I've only spent a couple grand more than the cost of a Camry.

      I've driven a Camry. It's not in the same league as a Model 3 in terms of ride, performance or handling.

      Can you buy a cheaper Camry? Sure, if you're a punk ass bitch.

    57. Re: Shorters by reanjr · · Score: 1

      P/E isn't super relevant to growth startups, which is what TSLA clearly is.

    58. Re:Shorters by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      In fact, once Tesla is set-up for on-going profitability, I have no doubt that Musk will finally put a decent non-MBA, engineer president in place and let them take over. At this moment, Tesla needs Musk to survive, but, I suspect by 2020, that will no longer be the case.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    59. Re:Shorters by haruchai · · Score: 1

      In Q1 2018, Tesla was only able to make 750 per week, 2200/wk by end of Q2 and now have cracked 4k/week for a total of 91k Model 3s to date in 2018.

      If they produce a steady 5k/wk to the end of the year, that'll be 157000 total which should land them about 25th place.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    60. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "They think there is a huge market for $65,000+ cars, and $1,000+ phones. Eventually you run out of people to sell shiny things to. "

      Wow. While technically that answer is correct, boy is it stupid.

      Yes, apple will run out of phone customers eventually. In the meantime they will have to bear the shame of being the most valuable company in the world. Those poor bastards.

      https://www.statista.com/statistics/263264/top-companies-in-the-world-by-market-value/

    61. Re:Shorters by WindBourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, yes, yes.
      Musk has broken YOUR ideas of "fundamentals". However, your idea is based on short-term profits.
      Musk, and Rei's, along with others such as myself, is based on GROWTH and getting the company to be able to add a factory and have its lines up to maximum production in under 6 months. M3, like MS/MX, has relatively low production costs (compared to other companies), and all of the money is going into R&D (hignest % in the industry; most are around 3-5%; Tesla is something like 20%) as well as building out a massive EV charging system (way ahead of anything else). However, yes, if has been failing your GAAP for short-term profits. But, I will guess that the bleeding stops by end of year.
      So, yeah, Rei is right that Musk has the fundamentals down. Oddly, prior to 1980, Musk would be held in the highest accolades in America. Now, we have nothing but multiple monopolistic companies, a bought political party (the GOP), and a large number of trolls that run around denigrating the man and his companies.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    62. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it doesn't matter how great or safe the car is. At the current price point it's competing with Mercedes and BMW. Aka luxury cars. The average American isn't going to spend much more than $20k-$30k on a car, even if the $50k Tesla is twice as safe.

    63. Re:Shorters by MachineShedFred · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They've sold every single Model 3 coming out of the factory for a year and they haven't even covered the demand from two countries.

      The premise of your statement is incorrect, as well as the statement itself being incorrect. Your premise states that one must be "rich" to buy a Tesla, yet it's the 3rd highest selling sedan in the US right now. Does that mean that everyone in the US that is buying a car is "rich"? Or are you playing the game where you say that they're all rich because you are comparing their income in a post-industrial nation with a pre-industrial economy in a nation locked in civil war for 20 years 6,000 miles away?

      Second, if they were "running out of rich people" in North America, they'd start loading cars onto boats destined for Europe. Or Asia. Which they aren't doing. Are you saying there aren't rich people in Europe and Asia, and that somehow all the rich people are in the US and Canada? Or that there aren't any boats available? Or that they can't figure out how to drive the trucks carrying them to a dock?

      I know your thing is to troll people, but you really can do better than that.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    64. Re:Shorters by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Even with those numbers pulled straight from your transverse colon, that's still around 8,000,000 cars; or 24x as many as Tesla has shipped in it's entire existence, even without the standard range Model 3 that costs ~30% less.

      How does that mean that they're running out of customers again?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    65. Re: Shorters by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Why sell a car for $40k with less margin when you can't even fill the orders you have at $60k?

      Seems like reasonable business to me.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    66. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Ohio. I'm married.

      We take delivery on our Model 3 this afternoon.

      You're wrong.

    67. Re: Shorters by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      You should probably inform Acura, Infiniti, Audi, BMW, Lexus, and Mercedes that their market is about to dry up then.

      Why is this only a problem for Tesla, again? Is it just because you're a hater and can't see actual market statistics?

      There actually is a pretty big market for $65k cars, which is why there are plenty of options at that price point. If the market wasn't there, it wouldn't have so many people competing for it. It's just slightly possible that you are a massive idiot, and that all those companies know a great deal more about it than you do.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    68. Re:Shorters by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      huh.
      America is 5% of the world's population. In fact, the entire western nations, alone, is more than 1/6 of the world population. Just in western nations, There are some 1.5 trillion with an median salary of ~$40K. That means that 1/3 of these could easily afford these (and with prices going down, many more will). So, yes, there is an easy 500 million that can afford the premium M3. Once the base M3 starts, then we are up to an easy 3/4T. And none of that includes the fact that Tesla will start $25K vehicles within 2-3 years, with $15K within 6 years.

      So, no, that is a great deal more than .001%.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    69. Re: Shorters by Joce640k · · Score: 5, Informative

      You must be joking. Every Tesla generation is CHEAPER? Only the rich can afford a Tesla you dunce

      Does that mean every generation of Tesla isn't cheaper? You lost me with your amazing logic.

      Tesla Roadster: From $112,000
      Tesla Model S: From $74,500
      Tesla Model X: From $79,500
      Tesla Model 3: From $49,000

      Damn those pesky facts!

      --
      No sig today...
    70. Re: Shorters by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Surely you meant 70000?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    71. Re: Shorters by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      funny thing is, that Lexus, Caddy, nearly all german cars, all sell for $50+K.
      And yet, the retarded one does not care about that.

      The funny thing is, that Tesla is not really increasing the market. They are replacing those car sales. IOW, they are taking sales away from the other car makers esp. the German, and Japanese luxury cars.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    72. Re: Shorters by WindBourne · · Score: 1

      BTW, it gets better.
      Just in Luxury German car sales for last year, there was 6,502,102 by Audi, BMW, MB, and Porsche. That does not include Caddy, Lexus, etc. Tesla is taking these car companies sales.
      So, apparently, plenty of luxury car sales on this planet.

      --
      I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
    73. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And many of those who wanted the base model have been canceling their pre-orders as they've gotten tired of waiting and being pushed back on the list because Tesla only wants to deliver fully-loaded versions still.

    74. Re:Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your link is an article from August. There's been two months worth of sales reporting since then.

      Your link is 1H2018, where the GP was referring to just September sales. Not apples-to-apples.

      Your link includes trucks, SUVs and light trucks because it's "vehicles." "Passenger vehicles" means sedans in the auto statistics world. Yes, this is dumb because all SUVs are passenger vehicles, but they get classified as light trucks. The claim is the 4th best selling "car" which is taken to mean "passenger vehicle". Yes, that is an in-descriptive word and can be interpreted exactly the way you did. GP poster should be more exact, because words mean things.

      When you look at the September sales data, the Model 3 outsold the Toyota Corolla at quite the price premium over the Corolla.

    75. Re:Shorters by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Stale data is stale.

      Did you even look at the date at the top?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    76. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If that $40,000 car lasts 1 million miles and is continuously updated, yes.
      How many Teslas have had motor failures from wear, not from water damage or wrecks?

    77. Re:Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tens of thousands of people that have bought them and are very happy with them would argue differently. As would pretty much every single car publication.

    78. Re: Shorters by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      Correct. Too many zeroes make math hard.

      Funny enough when I did the math in my head I got 70,000. Then I checked it with a calculator and got 700,000. Guess I dropped a zero while typing.

    79. Re: Shorters by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      And that's very sad for them, but it still has nothing to do with whether or not they can afford it.

    80. Re:Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Amazon has been 'cash flow negative' for a decade and yet its value is through the roof. You have to look at these things in context. Tesla IS spending tons of cash but it's going into assets like factories and tooling. At any point they could stop building assets and just take profit. They won't do it because their goal is not to be a small-time electric car manufacturer eking out a few cents for their shareholders year over year like Wall Street wants them to do, their goal is to displace the internal combustion engine in transportation. If you don't get that, then don't invest in Tesla.

    81. Re: Shorters by DatbeDank · · Score: 1

      You should probably inform Acura, Infiniti, Audi, BMW, Lexus, and Mercedes that their market is about to dry up then.

      Why is this only a problem for Tesla, again? Is it just because you're a hater and can't see actual market statistics?

      There actually is a pretty big market for $65k cars, which is why there are plenty of options at that price point. If the market wasn't there, it wouldn't have so many people competing for it. It's just slightly possible that you are a massive idiot, and that all those companies know a great deal more about it than you do.

      Pedantic, but each of your examples are a bit flawed. Acura, Infiniti, and Lexus are the luxury brands of Honda, Nissan, and Toyota respectively. Audi is the luxury brand of VW and Mercedes sells normal non luxury cars in the non NA markets.

      Each of those companies sells normal non-luxury vehicles which accounts for most of their revenue.

      The only true comparison would be BMW.

      Regardless, most new cars are purchased on credit or leased. The real money to made is in financing, not building. Once Tesla gets its manufacturing act together, financing their new cars would make their sky high market cap viable.

        Take it for what it's worth.

    82. Re:Shorters by anegg · · Score: 1

      The "fundamental" issues are supply [...], and manufacturing [...]

      Part of the debate/angst over the claim that "Tesla is trading on its fundamentals" might be the use of an investing term of art "fundamentals" in the context of "trading" (i.e., investing) but with a non-standard definition of what the word "fundamentals" refers to. This article https://www.investopedia.com/university/stockpicking/stockpicking1.asp outlines the basics of fundamental analysis in the context of investing.

      TLDR; I think that for investors, the term "fundamentals" usually refers to factors in what is known as "fundamental analysis," in which the important factors for analyzing a company involve[s] "... evaluating a security using quantitative and qualitative factors to answer questions such as: Are the company's revenues growing? Is the company actually making a profit? Can the company beat its competitors in the future? Can the company repay its debts? And ultimately: Will the company's stock be a good investment?" [from the Investopedia article]

      People who question Tesla's "fundamentals" might well be questioning whether the company is actually making a profit and can beat its competitors in the future, not looking just at some factors that contribute to that overall analysis such as sourcing necessary parts and performing manufacturing.

      I don't have any skin in the game; I don't invest in individual stocks nor do I play short-selling games. I'm very interested in electric vehicles in general, and Tesla in particular (as a company that is almost totally dependent on the success/long-term viability of electric vehicles). I've watched the debates over Tesla investing from the sidelines only.

    83. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The tens of thousands of Prius buyers would....

    84. Re:Shorters by thegarbz · · Score: 2

      The stock has collapsed lately. Is it because the "fundamentals" have changed somehow?

      If you need that question answered you should re-read the post you're referring to.

      Tesla is eventually going to run out of rich people to sell their vanity EV to.

      And when they do, an EV that is smack bang in the middle of the average new car sales price is there to take the company the next steps. Not that they have a shortage of "rich" (reads middle class) people.

    85. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of people. Right now plenty of people are buying the $49k version, and then applying $10k of gub'ment subsidies.

    86. Re: Shorters by lgw · · Score: 1

      Tesla isn't competing with Tata, you know? The market for a car in the Model 3's price range is certainly big enough to sustain current sales levels. Whether the car can really compete with similarly priced cars in the long run is an open question, but that's a large enough market for once car model to do OK.

      IMO, Tesla's long term future in the US depends on coming up with a good pickup truck. There's a huge untapped market there, but Tesla will need to enter it carefully, with the semi selling at least a few units, to use it for marketing, and a $40k model.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    87. Re:Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ho ho ho, all your shitty anti-Musk posts are modded at 0 where they belong.

      It's a shame your posts aren't automatically pegged to -1 so that I never have to read your bullshit again.

    88. Re:Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course a Tesla will be expensive but if the technology keeps improving and sales increase the price will eventually come down. If the vehicle range and performance increases consumer adoption should also increase. And as the number of electric vehicles increase the charging infrastructure should also grow. But no matter how good the electric vehicles become people are not going to get rid of their fossil fuel powered vehicles overnight. Cell phones used to cost over $1000 and the monthly service costs were not much cheaper.

      "The fact is only 0.001% of the people on this planet can even afford a cell phone" was an accurate statement all though the percentage would have been around 0.0001%.

      Nobody alive and reading this post today will be alive long enough to see the end of the fossil fuel powered vehicles.

    89. Re: Shorters by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      I'm looking forward to the Tesla 12.

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
    90. Re:Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you ever get tired of being wrong (or of being an asshole)?

    91. Re: Shorters by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      The point is that all of the above, and several more, make cars that target that price point, and are profitable doing it. Otherwise they wouldn't do it. Nobody makes a luxury car as a loss-leader.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    92. Re: Shorters by jbengt · · Score: 1

      The average household in America makes like $60K/year . . .

      The median household income is around $60k. The average is much higher.

    93. Re: Shorters by rogoshen1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good thing random slashdot user is here to tell acura, lexus, bmw, audi, mercedes, land rover, aston martin, jaguar, lincoln, infiniti, porsche, ferrari, bugati, etc etc that the market for cars north of 35k USD is a losing proposition. He might just save the whole industry!

    94. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I make around $200k and the last car I bought was $40k. I'm never spending that much on a car ever again. Total waste of money.

    95. Re:Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      cool story bro, so people do think there is value for the money.

    96. Re:Shorters by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Tesla lives and dies on Musk's cult of personality

      No. Tesla lives and dies off its fundamentals. And those fundamentals are the 4th highest selling car in the US by volume, highest by revenue, highest selling car (by volume and revenue) by a US manufacturer, overwhelmingly positive reviews, top notch safety, and margin expected to be already up to about 15% (and growing) this quarter, production rates growing faster than Panasonic can keep up with cells, with ample reservations (Tesla hasn't even opened sales to most of its global market), SR not being available yet, non-PUP not being available yet, air suspension not being available yet, tow package not available yet, leases (how most people acquire cars) not available yet, only one model year old (most people prefer to wait for at least 2-3 years old) and surrounded by FUD, sparse store network, no advertising budget, and about a dozen things.

      Tesla's fundamentals are rocking.

      All except for profitability, that is. Nissan, Honda, Toyota, Ford, GM - they all make money. Tesla? Not so much...

      So Rei - how much did Tesla lose in Q3?

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    97. Re:Shorters by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 2

      And the top selling EVs in East Asia - are not Tesla. And Nio already outsells Telsa in the high-end/luxury market in China.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    98. Re: Shorters by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Well, that IS about 3.5 times the total number of Tesla buyers to date, so...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    99. Re:Shorters by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Ford isn't that bad, actually - it pays a ~5.6% dividend, which is not bad. It's a big, stable, relatively-high-dividend stock which can be a good stock to own for those who want a mix of growth and stability.

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    100. Re:Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PS: It's not just safety, Teslas excel in almost every other way.

      Hey Joce640k, where is the actual NHTSA "lowest probability" link?
      All I see are #fakenews sites like tesla.com.

    101. Re: Shorters by swillden · · Score: 1

      What Tesla is $40k?

      I bought one for $40k.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    102. Re:Shorters by drsquare · · Score: 1

      Tesla lives and dies off its fundamentals.

      If that were true, it would be valued at about $5 billion. It doesn't matter how many cars they're selling if they're losing money selling them. Their margins aren't as good as they like everyone to think, their SG&A rises linearly with revenues, and they have ridiculous repair costs. Tesla books a $3k warranty cost for every car sold, for most cars it's about $300. That's going to chew into their margins when so many cars come in for repairs, whether it's frunks not opening, batteries dying, rear window defroster stripes peeling off, bumpers falling off in the rain, water getting inside the cars, window cracks etc. etc etc.

      SR not being available yet

      It's not available because they'll lose even more money selling that than they will the more expensive versions. Don't be surprised if the 35k car is quietly dropped, or only released in limited quantities.

      no advertising budget,

      Tesla spends about $500 per vehicle sold on advertising. That referral system doesn't pay for itself. Giving free roadsters to editors of Tesla-friendly news outlets doesn't pay for itself.

      If Musk is a drain to the company, why did they give him such a lucrative ten year contract? They should have paid him to leave instead.

    103. Re: Shorters by drsquare · · Score: 1

      There is no Tesla available for $35k, that's just another one of Musk's promises. The fact that this is repeated unquestioningly all over the Internet is proof that misinformation campaigns go both ways.

    104. Re: Shorters by drsquare · · Score: 1

      If there's more demand than Tesla to fill, why did they have huge parking lots full of cars that they invited anyone to come up and buy with no reservation?

    105. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You can have a great product and still fail. You can have a popular product and fail.

      Hi, AMC, studebaker, Pontiac, Packard, Dusenberg, vector, delorean, I didn't see you there!

    106. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you make it to the next city?

      Because the base model Camry can make it to the next city on a tank of gas. Can't do that in a Tesla.

    107. Re:Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone in the US that is buying (not leasing) a new car in the last 3 or 4 years IS rich. I'm much better off than many of my neighbors and friends, and even I haven't been able to afford a new car since 2005. Don't know anyone in the market.

    108. Re:Shorters by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      There are some 1.5 trillion with an median salary of ~$40K. That means that 1/3 of these could easily afford these

      If you make $40K/yr, you're not buying a $40K automobile, unless you enjoy poverty.

      Source: I make slightly less than that, and the most I can afford without fucking myself over on all my other bills is about $20K

      (and with prices going down, many more will).

      What evidence do you have that prices for brand new Tesla automobiles are going down? Because I haven't seen any.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    109. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are they currently shipping the 35k model 3? They aren't? Why? Because they want to sell the higher models first?

      So no, they don't have a 35k car.

      Show me one person who paid 35k for his car delivered by Tesla. You can't.

    110. Re: Shorters by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      The median household income is around $60k.

      Yes - usually split between at least 2 people.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    111. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No you didn't you fucking liar. And if you did, they didn't ship it to you yet you are still on that wait list. Fucking idiot.

      "I spent $40k to be put on a waiting list"

      Your name should be swindled.

    112. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So why do I see hundreds of brand new Teslas sitting in a parking lot in Bellevue WA? Maybe there's some churn in the inventory but (as a whole) they don't seem to be going anywhere.

    113. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. Troll.

    114. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As an owner of two BMWs, I am completely open to checking out a Tesla. But, I'm still waiting for the technology to mature/improve, and I'm waiting for the price to come down. I've never bought a brand new vehicle in my life nor do I ever plan to.

      Additionally, I fucking hate the touchscreen interface in a Tesla. I won't ever consider buying one unless it has physical buttons/knobs/etc.

    115. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Each model is less than the previous.

      Your comparison is flawed.

      You basically just said this:

      Lamborghini: 300k
      Porsche: 100k
      BMW: 75k
      Volvo: 50k
      Honda: 30k

      Each car
      You listed does not compare to the previous. They are entirely different cars.

    116. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Growth startup LOLOLOLOL.

      You fanboys are delusional.

    117. Re:Shorters by Kyr+Arvin · · Score: 1

      They start at $65k now? Damn, I'm glad I got mine when they were available at $49k!

    118. Re:Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And emits 15% of the CO2. Buy more Teslas !!

    119. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True, but most of the worlds population can't even afford clean water and food so what's the point in even mentioning the bottom 99% ?

    120. Re:Shorters by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Is this you conceding your point, now that you switched to a completely different topic?

    121. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The baseline variant isn't available in Canada. Cheapest one I can buy at the moment is $64kCAD (RWD with extended battery pack), and lacks some of the driver assist options that come standard in the current Toyota Corollas (Lane assist, parking assist, etc) that go for $20k; adding those options is $6k bringing the M3 to $70k CAD.

      It's still very much so a wealthy man's car. Not unobtainable, but for someone like me it's really too much money for too little car.

    122. Re:Shorters by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

      Tesla is a piece of hype by paid trolls like "Rei".

      And the headline is simply another Musk lie, already deniedby the NHTSA:

      https://money.usnews.com/inves...

    123. Re:Shorters by Mr.+Dollar+Ton · · Score: 1

      Why should not the shorts short? The "story" above is just another Musk lie:

      https://money.usnews.com/inves...

    124. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      didn't your other link show those luxury cars were increasing sales though?

    125. Re: Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tesla's piddly little few 10's of thousands are taking away from the millions of luxury cars. Barely even noise in the data yet.

    126. Re:Shorters by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      So clearly because your small circle of acquaintances aren't in the market, that means nobody in the 330 million US citizens is?

      Something about extrapolating statistics from meaningless sample sizes [here].

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    127. Re:Shorters by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Amazon has been 'cash flow negative' for a decade

      The reason nobody believes Tesla fanatics (and are instead shorting the stock) is that they don't have a fucking clue about basic things like cash flow.

      Amazon's cash flow in
      2013: + $2bn
      2014: + $2bn
      2015: + $7bn
      2016: + $9bn
      2017: + $6bn

      In other words, Amazon could fund all of Tesla's annual costs and investments without taking out a loan.

      don't invest in Tesla

      Finally we agree.

    128. Re: Shorters by Cederic · · Score: 1

      https://www.nhtsa.gov/vehicle/... tells me that the model 3 isn't yet rated.

      What's your fucking source?

    129. Re:Shorters by Cederic · · Score: 1

      My model 3 was $50K

      Lets see, a Model 3 is $35k, plus:
      battery upgrade - $9k
      premium interior - $5k
      paint & wheels - $1.5k
      enhanced autopilot - $5k
      'full self drive' - $3k (yeah, good fucking luck on that)

      Ah, ok. You appear to have gone for the cheap model. Hey, that's fine, people make their own compromi.. Oh, wait.

      Can you buy a cheaper Camry? Sure, if you're a punk ass bitch.

    130. Re:Shorters by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Uh, no? My point was that Tesla really doesn't sell that many vehicles, is getting trounced in the biggest EV market in the world, and still sells every vehicle at a loss...

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    131. Re:Shorters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So you have your own definition of fundamentals do you? How surprising.

      But, I will guess that the bleeding stops by end of year.

      Your fundamentals are guesses, we understand completely now.
      I suppose we should be happy you admitted it was a guess, instead of just lying or pretending to know something like you usually do.

  2. but burn rate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    but burn raaaaaaaaate

    *reeeeeeeeeeee*

  3. Does it measure driver attentiveness? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Having many controls that would be buttons in most cars on the touch screen is going to be a distraction for drivers. Even stuff like the headlight controls and windscreen wiper settings are on the screen, meaning you have to glance aside and hit a touch target with no tactile feedback.

    What do the accident stats say? Do we have per-model data on at-fault crashes?

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    1. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It’s all based on bullshit cherry picked statistics.

    2. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Rei · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Turning on and off the headlights manually? Lol. And where's the handcrank for the engine too, right? ;) At least autowipers aren't perfect and occasionally people want to override them (in the Model 3, single swipes and cleaning can be done with the left stalk, this also and automatically brings up the general wiper control menu just to the side of your right hand). But why do you think everyone should be turning their headlights on and off by hand?

      I don't get this desire for "busywork" when driving. Another busywork example I don't get: having to "start" the car. If the car has already authenticated you, why make the driver go through an added step of pressing a button or whatnot?

      As for "glancing aside", a quick test for you. Put your hands on your keyboard. Keep your focus straight ahead, not at the keyboard. Now lift your hands up so that your hands have to actually move to touch a key (go with, say, 2 finger lengths away). Now - still without looking at the keyboard - picture half a dozen random letters and try to type them, with your hands returning fully to that elevated position each time. How well did that go? If you're like a normal human being, the answer is "very poorly". You probably had better success with larger buttons (space, enter), but not with smaller ones. Now put your hands back down in a normal typing resting position (aka, touching the same solid surface as the keyboard) and try again. Trivial to type without looking, right?

      The simple fact is, we can control things in immediate reach of our hands from a fixed reference frame without looking, but when it comes to trying to control "button sized things" that we have to move our hands to reach, it's far harder. Which is why we look. You may believe that you do it without looking in your car, but for most tasks, you don't - start paying attention to yourself when you drive. You look because it's much faster and more accurate to do so.

      Another test. Picture an area about 2 1/2 centimeters / 1 inch square somewhere on the edge of your screen (it helps to have a fullscreen graphic up). Let's even forget about keeping your hands two finger lengths away! Look somewhat the side of your screen so that portion of your screen is in your peripheral. Now try to press that point on the screen. Do this several times. You probably did better than you expected to - simply because that's such a large virtual "button" you were trying to press. Give yourself even a brief glance at your screen and your accuracy will be almost perfect (again, due to button size). However, trying to hit "buttons" toward the centre of the screen, you'll find you have much worse accuracy than on the edges. If you were being bounced around, the centre would be all the worse, even with such a large button size.

      So what's the strategic takeaway from this, in terms of keeping people's attention on the road?

      1) Automate everything you can, so that there's no need to fiddle in the first place.

      2) Tie all settings you can into driver profiles, so there's no need for basic adjustments, only the things that vary on a ride.

      3) Put all frequent interactions on the steering wheel. Change track, change station, change volume, mute, pause, change cruise control speed, change follow distance, voice commands, etc.

      4) Put all "semi-frequent" interactions as close to the wheel as possible, as close to something your hands can physically touch as possible, with as large of a button as possible. Example: against the left or bottom edges of a screen (screen edge acts as a guideline for your hand), with buttons 2 1/2 centimeters / 1 inch square, so that they're very difficult to actually miss.

      5) Put infrequently used / only used when stopped functionality in menus. Make any displays as large as possible so "always on" things such as nav or cameras can be seen easily in your peripheral and so that they're easy to interact with.

      This is, in a nutshell, Tesla's design philosophy.

      As for Tes

      --
      "Close the door! What, were you born in a barn?" -- Police chief, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    3. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      headlights and wipers are fully automatic.
      Even the high-beams.

    4. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by ThosLives · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Removing responsibility for driving functions comes with the cost of lost freedom of the driving functions. You are now at the mercy of those who decided how things should function, rather than your own choices.

      It doesn't even matter if the automatic choices are statistically better (e.g., lower crash rates, more efficient driving, etc.); they still impose a loss of freedom.

      Which is better - safer but less free, or more free but less safe? I suppose society at large will make an aggregate decision there, but I'm guessing it will be an emergent choice rather than an informed one.

      As an aside - those crash statistics aren't really comparable because there is inherent selection bias among the drivers. The driver population of Teslas is likely to be a lower-risk population than other vehicles in the first place. You also have to factor in that you're comparing a small number of vehicle models against all other vehicle models. What happens if you compare against other brands individually? Try this report for instance - there are 9 non-Teslas out there with zero deaths per million passenger miles (and several others with more than 100!). Interestingly it is "economy" cars that have higher rates than expensive cars - which supports my theory that the demographic is likely an important factor, not just the vehicle.

      --
      "There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
    5. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You know that’s completely false right?

    6. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Eloking · · Score: 1

      I don't get this desire for "busywork" when driving. Another busywork example I don't get: having to "start" the car. If the car has already authenticated you, why make the driver go through an added step of pressing a button or whatnot?

      In case you bump the acceleration pedal by mistake by turning around to reach the childrens who are already fighting about their Nintendo 3DS again?

      --
      Elok
    7. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Rei · · Score: 1

      You have to shift into gear either way.

      --
      "Close the door! What, were you born in a barn?" -- Police chief, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    8. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      Having many controls that would be buttons in most cars on the touch screen is going to be a distraction for drivers. Even stuff like the headlight controls and windscreen wiper settings are on the screen, meaning you have to glance aside and hit a touch target with no tactile feedback.

      Go outside. It's been several years since people have to set those things manually.

      --
      No sig today...
    9. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Joce640k · · Score: 1

      What does that have to do with starting the car or turning on the headlights manually?

      PS: If you want to fix the kids it's much better to have an autopilot setting to keep the car steady while you do it.

      --
      No sig today...
    10. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Informative

      Turning on and off the headlights manually?

      The auto lights aren't perfect, on any car. It's not just a simple on/off with light level detection, it's the high/dipped beams.

      I don't get this desire for "busywork" when driving. Another busywork example I don't get: having to "start" the car. If the car has already authenticated you, why make the driver go through an added step of pressing a button or whatnot?

      Well in Tesla's case it's because the door locks are not very secure so they had to add a PIN to start the car as a second layer of defence. The less snarky answer is so that you can sit in the driver's seat with no possibility of accidentally moving the car due to stuff like mode confusion.

      As for "glancing aside", a quick test for you. ...
      Trivial to type without looking, right?

      Most keyboards have little ridges on the F and J keys so that you can locate your fingers correctly without looking, and then touch type. Similarly my car radio has a little nub on one of the channel favourite buttons. I never need to look at either.

      But that's only half the problem with touch screens. With buttons you can locate them by feel, and they require a moderate amount of pressure to press down so you can run your fingers over them, use them for a bit of support as the car bounces around etc. Try operating your phone when it is held in a mount and you are in the passenger seat of a moving vehicle, it's not easy. You really need to cup the phone in your fingers to steady both your hand and the display and then carefully hit large touch points. Stuff like swiping is doubly hard. And the Model 3 touch screen is 15" diagonal so you all the touch points need to be near the edges to give you something to grip.

      The same design constraints are evident in things like Android Auto.

      Put all frequent interactions on the steering wheel. Change track, change station, change volume, mute, pause, change cruise control speed, change follow distance, voice commands, etc.

      That's a pretty complex set of steering wheel controls. And what about climate control? Tesla doesn't even have an auto-demist function.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    11. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Prove that they're not spending the per-car profits on increasing manufacturing capability.

    12. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Rei · · Score: 2

      You know you can look at quarterly reports, right? Tesla does have one of the highest gross margins in the industry, far higher than most automakers. Tesla's normally runs around 25%, although it was dragged down by Model 3 in Q4 '07 to (GAAP/non-GAAP) 18,9%/13,8%, rose in Q1 to 19,7%/18,8%, then again in Q2 to 20,6%/21%, and will be even higher in Q3 when we get the report. Ford, by contrast, has a gross margin of 8.64%.

      Now, a fair criticism is that since Tesla bears the cost of running its stores (rather than passing the costs off to dealerships), it needs higher gross margins. But bears often vastly overestimate this aspect, pretending that running Tesla stores makes up 100% of SG&A, and as if stores scale linearly with volume (as if they were dealerships) - ignoring that they demonstrably don't, and haven't.

      --
      "Close the door! What, were you born in a barn?" -- Police chief, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    13. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Type44Q · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the first "pro Tesla" bit you've written that I don't disagree with, so that's definitely saying something. Your conclusions reveal that you've spent a lot more time thinking about driving that actually doing so; if you were a "driver among drivers," you'd instinctively know that headlight controls (among other things) should never be relegated to the touch screen.

    14. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      that I don't disagree with

      Or the other way around...

    15. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 2

      I don't get this desire for "busywork" when driving.

      Until driving is fully automated, we need "busywork".

      We are generally pretty terrible at needing to be on standby to leap into action and prevent a crash, but not actually doing anything 99.99% of the time.

    16. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by yodleboy · · Score: 1

      " You are now at the mercy of those who decided how things should function, rather than your own choices."
       
      Sounds like a certain company with a fruity name. Sadly, large numbers of people are obviously willing to accept that kind of hand holding.

    17. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Part of the reason Tesla makes big profits off its customers is that they don't do discounts. I've never, ever paid a dealer list price for a car, there are always discounts to be had and sweetners like free servicing and accessories.

      That's why it's hard to compare Tesla prices. A $50k Model 3 isn't comparable for a $50k car from anyone else because only a complete chump will pay any other manufacturer $50k for that vehicle. With a pre-reg deal it could easily be $30k.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    18. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 0

      The other thing to note is that they also have much higher warranty costs than most manufacturers. They are still having quality issues, especially with paint, so spend more on warranty servicing. Hence they need a higher margin to cover those losses.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by argStyopa · · Score: 1

      As far as I'm aware, no; the tests are gross crash-related and damage-inflicted.

      Then again, considering that some statistics show texting & driving now the cause of up to 25% of crashes (not sure I buy that, did car accidents increase +25% per driver mile since, say, 1995 before texting was a thing?) I don't think there's any shortage of 'potential driver distractions' in ANY driver environment.

      While I'm not a Tesla zealot, I have to admit that 'safest car ever' is a pretty nice feather in their cap.

      --
      -Styopa
    20. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by jittles · · Score: 1

      Having many controls that would be buttons in most cars on the touch screen is going to be a distraction for drivers. Even stuff like the headlight controls and windscreen wiper settings are on the screen, meaning you have to glance aside and hit a touch target with no tactile feedback.

      Go outside. It's been several years since people have to set those things manually.

      There are states where you have to turn on the headlights when it is raining enough that the wipers must be in continuous motion. Does the Tesla turn the headlights on automatically in this case? I don't know. But I have driven other cars (rentals) that do not. You have to manually interact with the headlights to comply with the law. Of course, in my experience, most people do not actually comply with that law and are more likely to turn on their hazard lights instead of their headlights which, by the way, is also illegal in most states.

      That being said, I drove my friend's Model S this weekend and I was annoyed at how little I could actually do without using the touchscreen. Things that I can do without ever looking away - like open the sunroof, adjust the air conditioning, and just about everything else. I rarely use the touchscreen in my car but it's basically mandatory in the Model S. They've built so much into the touchscreen that I am surprised that you don't have to use the stupid thing to roll down the windows or open the doors. It's ridiculous. And I really don't need that size of a screen next to me when I am driving. I did not drive this car at night but I basically want all those lights off, including the touchscreen, when driving at night.

      I did enjoy driving the Model S but the usability of the controls is approximately 0.

    21. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I stopped reading part way through.

      I drive a standard and honestly, I know exactly which controls I need to look at and which ones I don't.

      The ones I need to look at are, IMHO shitty designs.

      All the essential stuff and even some of the non-essential stuff is muscle-memory or touch.

      A touchscreen in a car is a shitty design.

    22. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

      While I love Tesla's cars in a big big way, and considered getting one semi-recently... I still am not at all a fan of a screen that houses most basic controls. Headlights? I certainly use them manually every day, because my auto-headlights only come on at night or really dim conditions... and around here for making yourself visible to others you want your lights on any time you are driving except maybe around noontime because it is so bright outside other people won't notice you anyway. Maybe Tesla has an option for that, maybe not.

      What about seat warmers? A/C? Radio (I'm guessing radio controls are on the steering wheel)? I am constantly adjusting that sort of thing, and I mean constantly. Recycle vs. outside AC air, change from upper vents to upper + lower. Fan speed up and down. Temp up and down. I find the fastest way on my car to get max AC is to turn it on automatic, then crank the temp dial down to the minimum. 4 minutes later I have to turn off auto and readjust all those settings manually. I can't buy a car with that stuff on a flat screen with no tactile feedback, I'd lose my mind.

    23. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by crow · · Score: 1

      Headlight controls are on the touch screen because you never use them. The automatic headlights are essentially perfect. They even go on for at least a minute if the wipers go on (as required by law in many states). The only time I can think of needing to manually turn on my headlights was for construction zones in Pennsylvania (weird state law), and I expect the Autopilot will pick that up eventually. The high beams ("brights") are also essentially perfect, though I manually turn them off sometimes at dusk when it turns them on just because it can.

      The automatic wipers are pretty good, and I rarely adjust them in my S, but I'm using the older hardware, not the camera-based rain detection. Not having to think about the wipers is nice, even if they do a random swipe once in a while.

      Generally I only look at the center screen with the autosteer on or when stopped, so the car is staying nicely in its lane.

      Comments like yours are almost always from people who haven't driven the cars. Once you drive one, you understand the logic behind the decisions. As a Model S driver, I'm concerned about a few of the controls that were not included in the Model 3, but they've added the most important ones to the steering wheel buttons, so I expect with a little experience driving, I wouldn't miss them.

      If you want to complain about the Model 3, complain about the lack of a heated steering wheel. That's the only thing it's really missing.

    24. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

      Oh man, high-beams is not a manual option? How the hell is that a thing? It sounds like they have auto-highbeam options that are not close to perfect either. Yeah, I very much need my manual controls for things like that.

      Some discussion here on a Tesla forum:
      https://forums.tesla.com/forum...

      Still, Tesla is doing so many things right. They are close!!!

    25. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Auto high beams? That's a deal killer for me. Or a literal killer. There are so many corner cases where they are helpful for brief periods that I doubt the software can handle.

    26. Re: Does it measure driver attentiveness? by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      Manual control of headlights is an important communication tool. Every car I've driven built since the late 90s has had a lever on a spring to temporarily turn on the high beams.

      I assume there's a way to handle this in the model 3, but if not it's a big problem.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    27. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 2

      Well hang on... this other discussion says you can do high/low beams with a "stalk" on the 3-series at least. This sounds pretty decent to me:

      https://forums.tesla.com/forum...

      If you need to flash your lights a few times to warn oncoming cars of an emergency or hazard that you just passed by, you can do it... at least on the 3-series. It turns off the auto-beam option, but you can enable it again by pushing the stalk forward. That is unless another update has changed this feature, I gather.

    28. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by dhaen · · Score: 1

      Having many controls that would be buttons in most cars on the touch screen is going to be a distraction for drivers. Even stuff like the headlight controls and windscreen wiper settings are on the screen, meaning you have to glance aside and hit a touch target with no tactile feedback.

      What do the accident stats say? Do we have per-model data on at-fault crashes?

      I like your posts normally, but in this case it's clear that you've never driven one. Best stick matters in which you're qualified.

    29. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of us not only set those things manually, we only want those things set manually, and we expect to do it without having to look at the controls to do it.

      Auto headlights and auto-wipers come in a range from crappy to super-crappy. They are one-size-fits-all jogging pants to tailored suit pants.

    30. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by vakuona · · Score: 1

      Removing responsibility for driving functions comes with the cost of lost freedom of the driving functions. You are now at the mercy of those who decided how things should function, rather than your own choices.

      You are driving a car, presumably on public roads. Your freedom is already severely curtailed:
        - You cannot drive on any side of the road you wish
        - You must stop when instructed to by lights
        - You must have a driving license
        - You must be sober
        - You must be at least a certain age
        - You must wear a seatbelt
        - Your car must meet certain emissions requirements (when buying new of course)

      The loss of freedom that Tesla imposes when you buy from them is tiny, inconsequential and a complete red herring. And yes, safety matters since you share road space with other users.

      And regardless, the existence of Tesla increases choice, because without Tesla, there would be less choice anyway.

      If you are worried Tesla might be too successful and other companies may copy them, then tough. Your freedoms were always illusory anyway if they depended on a private entity providing you with your preferred options.

    31. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

      I partially agree with this. Not sure adjusting things is always the right kind of busywork, but yes until cars are 100% auto we need to be alert. Keeping your eyes moving on the road looking for other vehicles in every direction and looking for issues far ahead of you, etc. is something that will keep you out of wrecks. And I totally agree that if you are zoning out 99% of the time, that 1% of the time when you need to take control... it's not going to be pretty.

    32. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by eth1 · · Score: 1

      Interestingly it is "economy" cars that have higher rates than expensive cars - which supports my theory that the demographic is likely an important factor, not just the vehicle.

      I've noticed this, too, but I think you've got it kind of backwards. I think many crashes are caused by simple poor judgment skills (which also covers things like DUI, phone use, etc.), and those (lack of) skills define the demographic, not the other way around. IOW, if you have poor judgement, you're less likely to be able to hold a better job, and thus likely to have to drive a cheaper car. I suspect this is the main reason insurance companies like to do credit checks.

    33. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The driver population of Teslas is likely to be a lower-risk population than other vehicles in the first place.

      I disagree. Perhaps you're imagining that people will take better care of a new car, or that people with money are safer drivers, but I see new and expensive cars being driven like crap every time I go out. I don't know if the people who can afford them are elderly and sufficiently past their prime that they can no longer drive correctly, or just entitled and they figure their money can solve any problems they might have by driving like entitled douchenozzles, but I encounter this regularly. Out of the places I drive, it's worst around Marin, but it gets bad anywhere the property values go up. (I believe that entitlement is the primary driver of this behavior.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    34. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The auto lights aren't perfect, on any car. It's not just a simple on/off with light level detection, it's the high/dipped beams.

      On the Tesla that may be true, but most cars just have a simple on/off with light level detection, usually coming from the sun load sensor. It worked great on our 2000 Astro until it decided that the lights had to always be on, but at least it didn't decide they had to always be off. (The control always worked to turn them on manually, until that was no longer necessary.)

      On the other hand, the combi switch on my '84 300SD died, and my lights ended up staying popped up and turned on until my battery died... a problem you don't have if you don't have a physical light switch.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    35. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      I've never, ever paid a dealer list price for a car, there are always discounts to be had and sweetners like free servicing and accessories.

      It's normal for people to pay above list price for vehicles which are in extreme demand... like the Model 3 is. It's common for high-end sports cars, for example, where demand significantly outstrips production.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    36. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Safer but less free" in this case is objectively better.

      Freedom is often arbitrary. Your car being restricted in what it's allowed to do, in what you can do to it, doesn't change your human rights in any way shape or form. On the flip side, being able to use vehicles as symbols of expression and extensions of mobility merely increase the number of laws necessary to handle all of the natural conflicts that occur from that.

    37. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      Well in Tesla's case it's because the door locks are not very secure so they had to add a PIN to start the car as a second layer of defence.

      Not the Model 3. The problem only affects cars with key fobs, so the Model S and X.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    38. Re: Does it measure driver attentiveness? by whoever57 · · Score: 2

      Every car I've driven built since the late 90s has had a lever on a spring to temporarily turn on the high beams.

      Just like the Model 3.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    39. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by werepants · · Score: 1

      The driver population of Teslas is likely to be a lower-risk population than other vehicles in the first place. You also have to factor in that you're comparing a small number of vehicle models against all other vehicle models. What happens if you compare against other brands individually? Try this report for instance - there are 9 non-Teslas out there with zero deaths per million passenger miles (and several others with more than 100!). Interestingly it is "economy" cars that have higher rates than expensive cars - which supports my theory that the demographic is likely an important factor, not just the vehicle.

      That's an interesting link, but I can't help thinking that 0 is a very misleading number to use there, particularly because this isn't deaths per million passenger miles, it's deaths per million registered vehicle years. And consider the methodology:

      "Although the latest numbers reflect 2011 models, the study included data from earlier-model year vehicles as far back as 2008 if the vehicles weren't substantially redesigned before 2011. Including older, equivalent vehicles increases the exposure and thus the accuracy of the results, the institute said. To be included, a vehicle must have had at least 100,000 registered vehicle years of exposure during 2009-12, or at least 20 deaths."

      That article in particular highlights the highest and lowest death rates, which is basically the least reliable meaning to be found in this report - it's no coincidence that many low-sales vehicles are present on both the high and low end of the spectrum. Many of the zeros would have just barely squeaked into being included (considering the ~20k/yr sales on the Mercedes SUV) which means that you're reporting 0 deaths per million vehicle years on data of only 100k vehicle-years.

      Based on those statistics you should estimate the rate to be 10 deaths per million vehicle years (basically assume that there was one observed death for the 100k vehicle years you have data on). If they wanted to report this more accurately, they would include the uncertainty - due to the nature of statistics on low-frequency events, there are very large error bars on these estimates. IIRC, the uncertainty on an event count of 0 or 1 will be around 10x in either direction - so really, the "true" value of the Mercedes death rate based on those stats is likely to be somewhere between 1 and 100 deaths per million vehicle years.

      The reverse case is also a problem - the Kia Rio also had fairly low sales to be included in the study, so there were probably around 15 total deaths for 100k vehicle-years, which could mean the vehicle (or its average driver) is dangerous, or it could be a statistical outlier. Since we do have some actual observations in that case, though, we have less uncertainty to account for, so the "true" rate is probably somewhere between 100 and 200.

      Bottom line - those figures are probably pretty reliable for your Honda Civics and Toyota RAV4s and other vehicles with a high number of vehicles and high number of observed events, but for vehicles with low sales figures, and especially for vehicles with one or zero observed events, we can't say with any confidence that the number is lower than 100 deaths per million vehicle years.

      For what it's worth, it used to be my job to estimate how often an event would happen even if we didn't observe it in the test data - which is basically this same situation.

    40. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a certain company with a fruity name. Sadly, large numbers of people are obviously willing to accept that kind of hand holding.

      There's nothing sad about it, for people who aren't computer geeks. Their goal is not to experience computers in all their glorious manifold permutations; they are using computers only as a means to an end. Because of that, they don't want "freedom", they want "something that just works without any hassle" so that they can spend their time completing the tasks they want to complete, and not on managing and troubleshooting a computer's settings.

      For people who are computer geeks and want direct control over every aspect of their computer's behavior (and are willing to spend the time to learn how to do it), there's Linux.

      There is room in the world for both approaches. Lamenting that not everyone wants to explore the minutiae of their operating system is like a clothing-design geek lamenting that most people don't want to sew their own clothing.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    41. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by avandesande · · Score: 1

      Touch screen is an obvious cost-cutting measure.

      --
      love is just extroverted narcissism
    42. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Eloking · · Score: 1

      Good point!

      --
      Elok
    43. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Automatic headlights and wipers have been a thing for like 15 years now from many manufacturers. But because Tesla, all of a sudden it's a problem?

      I've touched the headlight control in my BMW less than 5 times in 8 years, and it's always because someone at the service department turned the switch off. I use the wiper stalk a bit more frequently, but not much as those stay on automatic as well. Maybe once a month.

      They may have gone a bit overboard with all the touchscreen stuff, but you're complaining about things that were solved long ago.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    44. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because buying an off-the-shelf automatic headlamp system is completely the same as building an autonomous driving system using cameras and machine learning.

      Move the goalposts much?

    45. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      The situation you describe, in any ICE-powered car that isn't turned on:
      You bump the acceleration pedal and nothing happens.

      The situation you describe, in a Tesla Model 3 that "automatically turns on" when you sit in the driver's seat with either a paired / keyed phone or have the card key thing on the center console:
      You bump the acceleration pedal and nothing happens.

      Hint: you have to put ANY car into "gear" before it actually goes. The Model 3 has a "drive" selector you must use before it will go, both for this critical safety feature as well as "are you going forward, or in reverse?"

      If you're fiddling around with the kids in the back seat with ANY car in gear, then you're looking to hit a building with your car and you are endangering your children.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    46. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Even stuff like the headlight controls and windscreen wiper settings are on the screen

      Huh? What kind of a 1990s era piece of crap are you driving that requires you to touch those controls?

      On a lighter note, what kind of "average" car are you driving where taking your eyes off the road is a risk? Just let the car drive itself while you change your radio station, or do whatever strange thing you insist on manually doing with your wipers. ;-)

    47. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by houghi · · Score: 1

      You have very valid points, but you overlooked one thing.

      Where you said to go that having a physical reference with a keyboard once your fingers are there is easy.
      A touchscreen does not have that difference. So there is not a default position to go to. If I put my hands on the keyboard, I will know where the keys are without looking.

      So if there is a "keyboard" where the screen is, I can go in the general direction and know where I am.
      With old car radios, the radio could be under the chair for all I cared. No need to look. With what we have now, I MUST look or glance.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    48. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Another busywork example I don't get: having to "start" the car.

      This I get. There are plenty of times you get into a car and don't need to start it either at all or yet. Heck the world would be better served if car makers removed the switch that disables the "auto stop" feature instead.

    49. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by nagora · · Score: 1

      Yeah, manual light controls are a must-have, although they don't have to be manual-only.

      I look forward to seeing how these things does in London; I could do with a laugh. They can barely cope with the half-empty grid of the US interstate system. And as for Glasgow!

      "Hi, baby. Where's the car?"

      "In the river."

      --
      "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
    50. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > With buttons you can locate them by feel, and they require a moderate amount of pressure to press down so you can run your fingers over them, use them for a bit of support as the car bounces around etc.

      This argument is hilarious. I have never in my life seen anyone operate a vehicle like this.
      If you are so bad at driving that you can't recognize in which situations you should keep looking at the road (and not operate any buttons) and which situations you can glance at the dash to press a button or the screen you shouldn't be on the road.
      What idiot is white nuckling it on the road and at the same time feels a burning desire to change the radio station?

    51. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by lgw · · Score: 1

      As a car buyer, Tesla is dead to me without a volume knob. It's far from alone in that doghouse, of course. My current car has enough tactile cues on the center console to do the basic stuff without looking: volume, audio source, radio station, temp control. I do wish there was a knob for temp control, but you can't have everything.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    52. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by joh · · Score: 1

      That screen is high up, easy to reach and right in your field of view when you're looking at the road before you. I can't seriously pretend that a myriad of tiny buttons, dials and lights deep down in the center console or so is really better. The touchscreen is different, but not really worse.

    53. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      Which is better - safer but less free, or more free but less safe?

      How free will you be if you end up in traction at the hospital?
      I don't know about you, but I'm going for more free.

    54. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by jbengt · · Score: 1

      No, touch screens are worse, because you can't really touch and feel virtual buttons like you can with real buttons, so you have to look when using a touchscreen.

    55. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Saturn used to do the "the price is the price" thing, too. Seems like American car buyers like to haggle, despite getting taken every time. Millennials may be different though - maybe it's an idea whose time has come.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    56. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Two things. We have automatic high beams but but dipped beams, and it's not 100% reliable. I could make a joke about BMW drivers... And the rain sensor on the Model 3 is not very good, especially when it comes to selecting an appropriate interment speed. So it kind of is a problem when Tesla does it, because it's beta quality software.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    57. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by drsquare · · Score: 1

      But why do you think everyone should be turning their headlights on and off by hand?

      Because people know when they need them to be on, and Tesla doesn't. They've removed manual controls and replaced them with 'AI' that doesn't work. Fun includes high beams turning off if it sees a road sign, and wipers automatically turning on when you open the door, flinging water into your car.

      Another busywork example I don't get: having to "start" the car. If the car has already authenticated you, why make the driver go through an added step of pressing a button or whatnot?

      Because you might not want to start the car. But I like the way Tesla fanboys/investors/pump and dumpers have to write essays defending the numerous design flaws in their toy.

      One crash or near crash every 3,34 million miles with AP on / 1,92 million miles with AP off, vs. 1 crash on average per 492 thousand miles among the general public.

      AP only works on highways, you're not comparing like for like. More dishonesty from the pumpers.

    58. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Good point, the keyfob for the M3 isn't out yet. Not sure about the phone unlock... Lose your phone, lose your car too?

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    59. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      On the Model 3 it uses the front facing camera. As well as consuming more energy, it means that if it breaks it's an expensive repair rather than a $5 sensor.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    60. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Yes, it's common for small production, luxury vehicles to command a premium price.

      If we're accepting that Tesla is more a boutique shop like Pagani than a mass production manufacturer like Ford, then I'm fine with that... but then, stop comparing Tesla to Ford.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    61. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Millennials may be different though - maybe it's an idea whose time has come.

      Everything is a negotiation; anyone who doesn't realize that is a chump in the making.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    62. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the normal case when shopping is "take it or leave it" pricing. That's a kind of negotiation, to be sure.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    63. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for "glancing aside", a quick test for you. [extended example involving keyboards]

      A simple counterexample: the light switch. I can flip the correct switch on a panel with about half a second of feeling around. If the panel were a touchscreen - no matter how large the buttons - I'd have to look.

      Similarly, dials on the dashboard for (e.g.) air conditioning, with tactile feedback as they turn from one notch to the next, are much easier to use than any touchscreen could ever be.

    64. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Lose your phone, lose your car too?

      If someone finds your phone and can unlock it, they have both a key and the location of the car. Protip: make sure you have a good password on your phone.

      If you mean: "lose your phone and you can't drive your own car", then, no. The primary keys for the car are RFID chips embedded in credit-card sized cards.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    65. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Does it need to be unlocked to open/start the car? I suppose it's no worse than a fob in that respect.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    66. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't need to be unlocked to unlock the car.

      It is slightly more secure than a fob in that the car doesn't noticeably respond to the phone's presence. You have to pull a door handle for anything to happen. With a fob, you can press a button and listen out for the response from a nearby car.

      Also, you know that a fob controls a car, whereas a phone probably doesn't control a car, so why would you start testing nearby cars if you found a phone?

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    67. Re: Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe people want to concentrate on what actually matters, such as steering the car along a wet road with kids on the pavement. Rather than feeling smug about using a stick shift or turning the headlights on when the light starts failing.

      Cognitive overload is a thing

    68. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not the real problem. The real problem is now I forget to turn off my other car. :(

    69. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Turning on and off the headlights manually? Lol. And where's the handcrank for the engine too, right? ;) [...] But why do you think everyone should be turning their headlights on and off by hand?

      Mostly because all the implementations that I've seen are imperfect. Most cars get it right only about... say 98% ish right, in come cases coming on when it's not necessary and in other cases failing to come on when it's necessary.

      The former usually happens when a shadow falls over the light sensors. It's not a big deal with an analog-like instrument cluster, but for a digital LCD based one it is problematic as it may dim the display's backlight to being almost unusable in sunlight. The latter occurs in specific tunnels that do not have any lighting in them (yes they exist, thankfully they're getting rarer nowadays). I'm not entirely sure why they fail but I've seen Mazda, Kia, Hyundai, and Chevrolet auto lights fail to come on in these tunnels.

      Now to be fair these are edge cases so it most cases it's fine just to leave it in auto. But it's just that nagging 1% of the time that makes it so that you kinda do have to keep an eye on the system once in while just to make sure it isn't doing something wrong.

    70. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by hackertourist · · Score: 1

      Interestingly it is "economy" cars that have higher rates than expensive cars - which supports my theory that the demographic is likely an important factor, not just the vehicle.

      Demographics could go either way though. New economy cars are driven by women and older people, both low-risk groups. High-risk groups (young drivers) tend to drive second-hand cars. Teslas are driven by affluent high-mileage drivers, and in my experience those tend to drive agressively, increasing their risk.

      Don't discount the vehicle itself. Economy cars have higher death rates because
        - their crumple zones are smaller, so less margin
        - they're at a weight disadvantage compared to the many two-tonne SUVs and pickups
        - fewer safety systems installed to keep cost down

    71. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Model 3 allows you to push the left stalk forward and get high beams, just like any other car

      Model 3 allows you to pull the left stalk forward for flash-to-pass momentary high beams, just like any other car

      Model 3 has a button on the left stalk to activate the windshield wipers.

      What were you complaining about again?

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    72. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If we're accepting that Tesla is more a boutique shop like Pagani than a mass production manufacturer like Ford, then I'm fine with that... but then, stop comparing Tesla to Ford.

      That's fair, since there's no comparison. Ford cannot possibly produce the same level of interest in their superantiquated shitboxen that Tesla does for their modern cars.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    73. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the normal case when shopping is "take it or leave it" pricing.

      Sure, for non-commission based retail sales; the kid working register at Rue 21 gets paid $9/hr regardless of whether or not you buy those skinny jeans, so no, he's not going to negotiate the price with you.

      Salesmen who are dependent on sales commissions for income, however, are a different animal.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    74. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by CanHasDIY · · Score: 1

      Yea, I mean, when Ford sells literal millions of their "superantiquated shitboxes" every single year, compared to Teslas best year of a few hundred thousand, you really can tell who has the higher level of interest.

      Fanboi-ism is obvious with this one.

      --
      An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
    75. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      When Tesla sells every vehicle they can produce, but Ford has cars lying around on lots even after they terminated production of their unpopular models on which they were losing cash after R&D costs, you know where the market is going. And so does Wall Street.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    76. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Spoken like a true anti-vaxxer.

    77. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by lgw · · Score: 1

      Absolutely. But why would any sane person want that when shopping? It's appalling.

      And the hilarious thing for cars is that everyone gets taken, yet walks away thinking they got the best deal ever, and totally outsmarted that car salesman.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    78. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by samwichse · · Score: 1

      The headlight controls are on the stalk, what's this fuss about?

    79. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      That screen is high up, easy to reach and right in your field of view when you're looking at the road before you

      What if I want to look at the road and surroundings, and no the screen blocking my view?

    80. Re:Does it measure driver attentiveness? by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Surely it has volume and mute controls on the steering wheel? That's been pretty standard on any car for over a decade.

    81. Re: Does it measure driver attentiveness? by picoboy · · Score: 1

      The thumb wheel on the left side of the steering wheel controls volume (up/down), track skip (right/left) and pause (press in). The thumb wheel on the right side of the steering wheel controls the cruise/autopilot speed limit (up/down), following distance (right/left) and voice commands (press). Turn signals are on the left stalk, wiper and headlight controls on the right stalk. The controls are perfectly efficient and work more or less like any other car. The climate controls are on the touchscreen and are simpler and easier to adjust than on any other car I have ever driven. I rarely touch the entertainment or nav system while driving because the voice controls are more convenient.

      Everyone here talking shit about the controls who doesn't own it and drive it every day, you have no idea what you're talking about.

  4. Re:Buy Two by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll buy three! One to take with me to Mars (on a SpaceX rocket of course ;'D I'll buy the ticket with all the money I made investing in Tesla stock!) that I can use to zip around flattening Martians!

  5. The chance that I'll get injured in a Model 3 is 0 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I'm poor.

  6. Re:Stephen King, author, dead at 71 by Rei · · Score: 1

    Horror/Sci Fi writer Stephen King was found dead in his Maine home this morning.

    Or Was He???

    --
    "Close the door! What, were you born in a barn?" -- Police chief, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
  7. Re:Stephen King, author, dead at 71 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Trump curse claims another victim lol.

    Can't wait for yet another day of everyone in the world competing to be the saddest about the death of some asshole celebrity that they probably hadn't thought about in a decade.

  8. Re:Stephen King, author, dead at 71 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where were you when Stephen King died?

  9. Link broken by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It should be this:

    www.thedrive.com/news/24094/tesla-model-3-has-achieved-the-nhtsas-lowest-probability-of-injury-ever&r=&bc=

  10. Re:The chance that I'll get injured in a Model 3 i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    On the plus side, at least you don't own an electric car.

  11. biggest selling point by sad_ · · Score: 1

    maybe increased safety could become electric cars their biggest selling point?
    because they have no engine in front they are already safer then traditional cars, combine with the awd that you is also mostly found on them, these cars main selling point could very well be the safety.

    either way, the tesla 3 goes on my list of 'cars to buy', it has great range, it's safe and has good build quality.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
    1. Re:biggest selling point by Rei · · Score: 2

      Lol, a Battery Fire Truther ;)

      Yes, you tell 'em, statistics be damned, EVs catch fire way more often than the designed-to-burn-easily hydrocarbon in ICE vehicles that you store in big tanks, with lines of the stuff reaching around a hot engine.

      With a couple hundred million miles under their belt, the total number of battery fires in customer-owned Model 3s so far has been.... zero. For gasoline cars, it's one every 20 million miles. So far the only evidence of a Model 3 fire of any kind was one in a salvage lot in Fremont with 1 mile on the odometer, aka, not a customer car. And the fire damage was heaviest on the front bumper, not around the battery.

      --
      "Close the door! What, were you born in a barn?" -- Police chief, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    2. Re:biggest selling point by Rei · · Score: 1

      The problem with internal combustion engines is that they're large, relatively incompressible objects. And a crash wants to shove that object straight into the cabin. With an electric car - particularly one with a large frunk - the whole front end is available for crumpling; there's no large objects to get pushed back like a battering ram.

      Beyond that, EVs are inherently very rollover resistant - they're like weebles. Model 3 also has a very low polar moment of inertia, because the drive units and battery pack area all within the wheelbase. This makes it easier for a car to deal with off-centre impact force by rotating rather than by crushing. The battery pack - while not functioning as a primary support - also acts as a stiffening element to the primary support beams on the underside.

      --
      "Close the door! What, were you born in a barn?" -- Police chief, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    3. Re:biggest selling point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then the cherry picked picked statistics are complete bullshit then damn them.

    4. Re:biggest selling point by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      More lies. Go to Youtube and you will see plenty of videos of Tesla's on fire. There isn't anything magical about Teslas batteries that keep them from catching fire in some circumstances. What a cult.

    5. Re:biggest selling point by Rei · · Score: 1

      Interesting, I found a picture of you on the internet.

      Note that my statement was about specifically the Model 3. There's not merely "a couple hundred million miles" on S and X; Tesla's total miles as of April (when Model 3 miles were low) was 7,2 billion. Also, S and X use a different battery tech from the 3 (but are still an order of magnitude less likely to catch on fire than a gasoline car).

      --
      "Close the door! What, were you born in a barn?" -- Police chief, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    6. Re:biggest selling point by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Why "only the Model 3"? The OP never mentioned the Model 3? I guess you are moving the goalposts. Let me ask you a question: why are you such a corporate shill? Why are you so intensely interested in a car that only 0.001% of the planet can even afford? It isn't "green". No personal car is "green". So what is it? Are you getting paid to shill for Tesla? Just love mega corporations? What is it? Just love the stock?

    7. Re:biggest selling point by Rei · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Article Topic: "Model 3 Achieves NHTSA's 'Lowest Probability' of Injury Ever"

      GGP: "...either way, the tesla 3 goes on my list of 'cars to buy'..."

      You: "Except for your extremely high probability of burning to death in a battery fire."

      Me: "With a couple hundred million miles under their belt, the total number of battery fires in customer-owned Model 3s..."

      You: "Go to Youtube and you will see plenty of videos of Tesla's on fire"

      Notice how everyone else was talking about the Model 3 but you.

      Why are you so intensely interested in a car that only 0.001% of the planet can even afford?

      Wrong.

      The top 5 cars people are trading in to buy Model 3s are: Toyota Prius, BMW 3-Series, Honda Accord, Honda Civic, Nissan Leaf.

      It isn't "green". No personal car is "green"

      That's like saying about rhubarb vs. water hemlock, "It isn't nontoxic. No food is devoid of toxic compounds". While true, people need cars and not all cars are equal.

      Are you getting paid to shill for Tesla?

      My Shill Check strangely hasn't arrived! Do you know where it might be? Does this mean that they've gone Bankwupt?! ;)

      What is it?

      Um, exactly what it says on the tin? I like the cars, I like the tech, and I like the company.

      --
      "Close the door! What, were you born in a barn?" -- Police chief, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
    8. Re: biggest selling point by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      She already explained why; because it uses different tech. She also explained that even including all models they are still far less likely to catch fire than ICE vehicles. Let me ask you a question - why are you such a fucking liar?

    9. Re: biggest selling point by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I am not a liar. I just hate corporate shills. Pathetic creatures.

    10. Re:biggest selling point by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      Let me break it down for you: the average income on Earth is $18,000. $18,000. You are talking about people who own Toyota Prius and BMW 3 series??? You technocrats are so out of touch with reality. Who the hell can afford a $65,000+ car? Only the 0.001%. How the fuck is that going to save the planet? Individual cars are not "green". They are the scourge of the Earth, no matter where they get their energy from. And as for the "tech" if you are impressed by the 100+ year old idea of hooking up an electric motor to a battery and putting it in a tin can then you are easily impressed. You are just another corporate fanboy like console fanboys, iPhone, etc. And you are wrong: people don't need cars. And they definitely don't need $65,000+ cars used for virtue signaling. So take your corporate shilling somewhere else.

    11. Re: biggest selling point by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I would expect a liar to say.

    12. Re: biggest selling point by 110010001000 · · Score: 1

      I'd rather be a liar than a corporate shill posing as an environmentalist, or an out of touch technocrat.

    13. Re: biggest selling point by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I can tell. Which is why you keep lying about Rei, and about Tesla.

    14. Re:biggest selling point by Smidge204 · · Score: 1

      Out of all the Teslas (any model!) you can find that are on fire, how many of them were involved in some horrific crash?

      Nearly all of them. Getting a Tesla (or any EV) to catch fire generally requires some effort.

      Meanwhile, there is a car fire roughly every 3 minutes in the US alone (based on data from NFPA: 174,000 reported incidents in 2015). 72% of these fires are caused by a malfunction of some kind. I guess having a flammable liquids in close proximity to boiling hot metal and gasses can be a hazardous situation!
      =Smidge=

    15. Re:biggest selling point by drinkypoo · · Score: 2

      You technocrats are so out of touch with reality. Who the hell can afford a $65,000+ car? Only the 0.001%.

      False. Any working couple with full-time employment should be able to get a loan for that kind of money, unless they live someplace where rents are ridiculous.

      How the fuck is that going to save the planet?

      It's a step in the right direction. How the fuck is your complaining about it going to help anything? You're changing no one's mind, and it requires energy to make your comment go 'round.

      They are the scourge of the Earth, no matter where they get their energy from.

      They're an improvement over what came before, and you can't just wave a magic wand and do things intelligently. You have to work with reality. you know, where the rest of us live?

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    16. Re:biggest selling point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only idiot would finance a car if he/she can afford to pay cash for one. If I have 40K to get a Camry, I would be an idiot to get a loan for another 20K to afford a Tesla. Both will depreciate faster than you can make your loan payments. I live in silicon valley where there are a lot of Teslas. So far all people I know who purchased one have enough money that they don't care about spending 60+K or have no financial literacy and live above their means.

    17. Re:biggest selling point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because clearly YouTube is a statistically relevant sample that should be used to draw conclusions of any kind.

      Nobody posts every car fire from ICE powered vehicles, because they are amazingly common. In 2015 alone, there were 174,000 highway vehicle fires.

      Reuters reports a single Tesla car fire in 2015.

      You are a god damn idiot.

    18. Re:biggest selling point by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Since the Model 3 is currently only available in North America, quoting global per-capita income is completely useless and a waste of everybody's time. Someone's income in a central African nation has no bearing on what car I'm going to buy with my income, and you don't get to tell me how to spend the money that I earn, just like I don't pretend to tell you what to do with your income.

      Further, if 0.001% of 8 billion people can afford a Tesla, then that still leaves 8 million cars to sell in that market segment. Sounds like a good place to make some sales, which is why there are so many manufacturers targeting that price point: Acura, Audi, BMW, Cadillac, Infiniti, Jaguar, Lexus, Lincoln, Mercedes, Tesla, Volvo, etc.

      Stop talking about global income and how that is in any way relevant to Tesla, or any other car manufacturer at all. You just look like an idiot.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    19. Re:biggest selling point by butchersong · · Score: 1

      A car loan can usually be financed at between 2-4%. For a 60k car.. you're essentially talking about an extra $100 a month or so at most. This is nothing. You'd be better off using that money to finance investments like perhaps a rental home, rolling it back into your business or something along those lines.

  12. Survival of the Fittest by mentil · · Score: 2

    This means that natural selection will weed out all the ICE vehicles' drivers over time, right? Electric car master race!

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
    1. Re:Survival of the Fittest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If so then only the rich will live.

    2. Re:Survival of the Fittest by butchersong · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately that very low selective pressure is unlikely to counterbalance the fact that EV driving couples probably have a fertility rate of about 0.8

    3. Re:Survival of the Fittest by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This means that natural selection will weed out all the ICE vehicles' drivers over time, right? Electric car master race!

      And an endless sea of oil-pun vanity plates.

      Take me to the big wrecking yard in the sky!

  13. Re:The chance that I'll get injured in a Model 3 i by mentil · · Score: 1

    Wait still Uber drivers start showing up in one (or something similar). Don't have to own one to ride in one.

    --
    Corruption is convincing someone that the selfless ideal is the same as their selfish ideal.
  14. But... by RobinH · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If you have to be in a crash, that's a good car to be in. However, they're not really taking into account the tendency for anyone to drives one to mash the accelerator (which is very fun) or be distracted by the huge iPad in the middle of the dash. On the other hand, I assume it handles quite well in the snow, both because of the low center of gravity and the full ESC and Traction Control capabilities. Overall it's a great car, but there's more to the safety of a vehicle than how it handles an accident. Probability of accident is a factor too.

    --
    "I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
    1. Re:But... by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

      You do know that there's enough data now to have reliable accident rates for the Tesla models, right? Or maybe you don't, because you wouldn't be incorrectly speculating on their accident rates if you did. Rei posted them up above if you're not interested in googling for them.

      --
      Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
    2. Re:But... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that there's enough data now to have reliable accident rates for the Tesla models, right?

      You know that’s literally incorrect especially for the model 3.

    3. Re:But... by Toshito · · Score: 1

      I don't know if you've ever driven in snow, but most of the time Traction Control is useless in deep snow.

      Even with winter tires, most of the times I disable the Traction Control because if it's activated it takes forever to accelerate. When you have a front wheel drive car in deep snow, with good tires, it's much more efficient to spin the front tires moderatly to accelerate. With Traction Control as soon as there is spin it strangle the engine and uses the brakes to try to modulate traction, but since there's almost no traction it's totally useless.

      ECS is still usefull to prevent fishtailling tough.

      --
      Try it! Library of Babel
  15. Re:The chance that I'll get injured in a Model 3 i by Rei · · Score: 2
    --
    "Close the door! What, were you born in a barn?" -- Police chief, "Jesus Christ Supercop"
  16. YOUR FACTS ARE WRONG. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The lights turn on automatically. Even the high beams go on and off automatically..

    The wipers also turn on automatically and can be adjusted using the stalk on the side of the steering wheel (like many other cars).

    Your info is WRONG NOW. You probably read/watched reviews that were either done by people who saw the controls on the screen and thought those were the only way to use those things, or were reviewing early production models which had not yet received the software updates that activated those features (software updates are free and happen over-the-air, so no service/dealer trip is needed).

    Additionally, since all of them get continuous free software updates, it's expected that full voice control over those features will be added at some point, too--the car already has some other voice control features, and again, as a free software upgrade, this would become available in all of them no matter when they were purchased.

  17. That Apple engineer who died in a Tesla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    he might disagree. You know the guy who repeatedly reported that his Tesla intentionally attempted to stear straight into a concrete file split every time he passed it on his way from work, and was eventually killed because he couldn't react in time the last time the car did it.

    But hey let's not talk about that.

    1. Re:That Apple engineer who died in a Tesla by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's talk about what "stear" means and what a concrete file split is....

    2. Re:That Apple engineer who died in a Tesla by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

      It would have helped if the driver had his hands on the steering wheel. And, if he knew that the car was trying to do that, turn off the autopilot on that section of the road.

    3. Re:That Apple engineer who died in a Tesla by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      If his car, when on autopilot, kept trying to drive into a concrete divider on a certain section of road "every time he passed it" why the fuck was he still using autopilot on that section of road, or at all?

      Sounds like a person with poor decision making skills, or the story is incorrect.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  18. Having been hit by a Tesla 3 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Having been hit by a Tesla 3, sure maybe you're not likely to be injured IN one, but there is certainly a good probably of being injured BY one, since they tend to just drive into the back of you while you're riding your bicycle in the bike lane.

    1. Re:Having been hit by a Tesla 3 by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Nothing short of a perfect full-autonomous driving system (which doesn't exist) is going to prevent a bad, inattentive driver from being bad, or inattentive.

      If the bad, inattentive driver is using Autopilot on any road with a bike lane, then they are not using it properly. It is for divided restricted-access highway use only. And if they are bad, and inattentive, then they are going to run into people in a bike lane regardless of the car they are driving.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  19. AC Achieves 'Highest Probability' of First Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ooooh, yeah.

  20. Re:Stephen King, author, dead at 71 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where were you when Stephen King died?

    Which time?

  21. Re:The chance that I'll get injured in a Model 3 i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's Lyft and Uber. You STILL have a chance!

  22. Re:The chance that I'll get injured in a Model 3 i by Joce640k · · Score: 1

    I'm poor.

    You can still dream about one day not being killed on one though.

    --
    No sig today...
  23. It's al because of Tesla. by pablo_max · · Score: 1

    I wonder this stacks up against something like the XC90, which until now, no one has ever died in. Seems to be favorable.

    I would personally love to have an electric car. I think the Tesla design is nice looking, except for the SUV which I find horrid. However, the one I test drove, (model S) I found to be lacking in overall quality.
    I am not saying it is a bad car, but it didn't seem all that well put together. There were loads of body panels which didn't line up. Uneven gaps and some plastic bits which looked as they would pop off.
    The sales man said it was normal. OK....

    I ended up going with a plug in hybrid Volvo V90, as I love the interior and exterior styling as well as the attention to detail.
    Likely I will never buy a Tesla product, but I do own them a thanks for bringing electric cars mainstream.
    Without Tesla, I would likely wait at least another years before I could buy a full electric at a reasonable price.
    As it stands.. the flood gates are set to open in 2020 and it is, despite what anyone says, because of Tesla.

    1. Re:It's al because of Tesla. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you for supporting the Chinese auto industry with your purchase of a Volvo car. Your future owners and overlords appreciate your efforts to bring about the global Chinese revolution!

    2. Re:It's al because of Tesla. by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I'd rather support the Chinese motor industry than the American one but I'm not sure what your point here is.

  24. Re:Stephen King, author, dead at 71 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Will you please just go away. You post this like once a week. You aren't funny. You aren't clever. You're just irritating.

  25. This might be a problem for short sellers by hyades1 · · Score: 1, Funny

    So how are the people who have been getting creamed for years trying to short Tesla stock going to pitch this as FUD?

    I look forward to reading carefully-placed stories in the business press intended to convince us that getting hurt or killed in a car crash is actually a good thing.

    --
    I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
    1. Re:This might be a problem for short sellers by ledow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because almost all modern cars are pretty good in this regard?

      The 2014 Tesla Model S EuroNCAP tests (equivalent of this test, but only done on certain years, not EVERY possible year of model) actually put it below the Ford Mondeo (called a Fusion in the US) - all the scores are lower except the driver assist tech available on the Mondeo.

      But they both score 5 stars. I'm sure in the 4 years since then the newer Mondeos probably score higher still, and the Tesla as well. As does pretty much every decent car - Ford Focus, Nissan Leaf, Kia Stonic, Honda Civic, Subaru Impreza.

      It's the ones that DON'T pass with 5 stars that stand out. Pretty much they kill people and they are quickly resubmitted for testing after a redesign.

      Do you really think that, in subjective tests, the difference between 5-stars and 5-stars being a small handful of points in things like "how many safety gadgets does the software boast" really make a difference?

      I'm no Tesla fan. But I'm a massive safety fan. Safety is incredibly important to me - that's why I own a Mondeo and checked it first. But this is *one* factor - the question of "how much control do I have of the vehicle" is actually a bigger question for me. But orders of magnitude. Hence I don't have all the lane-assist junk on my car deliberately - I refused the option. Because I intend to drive it, not put software in the path of the steering wheel direction.

      As one small factor, congratulations, it's a win for Tesla on a subjective test and may / may not actually be repeated around the world with stricter safety requirements on vehicles. In terms of "being a mass market car manufacturer", that puts you firmly in the... well... kinda "damn well expected" section of the statistics.

      Congratulations. Tesla *isn't* shit at basic safety tests over a small portion of their cars, testing a small subjective portion of their ability to survive head-on/side collisions.

      Go you.

    2. Re:This might be a problem for short sellers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bloomberg will probably make some shit up for ya.

    3. Re:This might be a problem for short sellers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      will you switch to computer-controlled driving when it will be shown it is much safer than human driven cars ?

    4. Re:This might be a problem for short sellers by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      [...] getting hurt or killed in a car crash is actually a good thing.

      What doesn't kill you makes you stronger. I think it was the famous philosopher Kelly Clarkson who said that.

    5. Re:This might be a problem for short sellers by ledow · · Score: 1

      I'd switch to computer-controlled driving tomorrow...

      If you don't rely on it trying to interpret a situation via shitty visual sensors, within inches of human-controlled vehicles and pedestrians, and instead run it in an isolated road that has all the necessary sensors and safeguards built into it, and human drivers and pedestrians aren't allowed anywhere near it, and someone takes full and complete responsibility for its actions (or inactions) while it's in that place.

      In fact, I already have been. It's called a train.

      Computer-controlled driving on a human-shared road is the dumbest thing I ever heard of. And it's not unique to Tesla to jump on the stupidity bandwagon.

      In fact, to be honest, if you just push all liability to the companies and their directors, I'd probably use a computer-controlled car today. I just wouldn't use it for anything that involved my body... I'd use it as a personal parcel delivery service and see whether the companies went bankrupt in the 10 years before I dared put myself in one.

    6. Re:This might be a problem for short sellers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're not a massive safety fan, you're a massive fan of your own ego, believing that you are less infallible than a tireless computer when it comes to paying attention.

      Same driver, highway miles, AP vs no-AP, AP wins every time. The technology improves safety. Unless in the universe revolving around you math behaves differently.

    7. Re:This might be a problem for short sellers by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Same driver, highway miles, AP vs no-AP, AP wins every time.

      Bullshit.

      Highway accidents I've caused: 0
      Highway deaths caused by Tesla's shitty software: More than 0

      Maybe we just disagree on the meaning of the word 'win'.

    8. Re: This might be a problem for short sellers by picoboy · · Score: 1

      The NHTSA ratings are not subjective, they are based on scientific experiments performed on the vehicle measuring structural integrity of the vehicle and force of impact on the test dummies which is a function of force absorption achieved by the vehicle's structure and its active and passive safety features. There were five other vehicles made by four manufacturers (Ford, Honda, Subaru and Toyota - no Volvo, by the way) that also received five star ratings in all categories. NHTSA provides more detailed data, but they digest the data into coarse "star" ratings for easier public consumption. However, the detailed data showed the Tesla Model 3 achieving the lowest probability of injury of any car they ever tested.

      Those are the facts. All the other comments about subjective ratings, poorly designed and distracting controls, driver attentiveness, etc., are just spin - mostly by people who have never driven a Tesla Model 3 or who own a Volvo and can't accept that even Volvos don't score as well in safety tests (hint: it's because of the unavoidably massive chunk of metal sitting under the hood).

  26. Statistical Quirk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't it too early in the rollout for statistically significant numbers?

  27. Re:The chance that I'll get injured in a Model 3 i by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd certainly expect a $60K+ sedan to be one of the safest on the market.

  28. Gimmicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Automate everything you can, so that there's no need to fiddle in the first place

    What you call automation, I call gimmicks.

  29. Rigid and stable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So in any non-roll-over situation that means rapid deceleration and/or bouncing back ? Human bodies love going from 120 mph to 0 in one second (5g).

  30. Primary reason for lack of injury by JoeyRox · · Score: 0

    Is the low probability that Tesla will ever deliver your Model 3 preorder.

    1. Re:Primary reason for lack of injury by dehachel12 · · Score: 1

      the model 3 was in September ranked fourth in the us car sales.

  31. Auto headlights better by any measure by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    Which is better - safer but less free, or more free but less safe?

    But you always have freedom for the cases you might need it, the controls are just slightly less convenient to get to.

    In the general sense that sounds great to have more freedom.

    In practical use automatic headlights are vastly better. I have automatic headlights on my car on an easily accessed switch where I could turn them on/off manually if I wanted - but I just leave the selector in Auto.

    Why would I not? Headlights are better at all times when you have the car running. I'd rather not have to remember to turn them off or have a super annoying warming noise every time I shut off the car with the headlight selector still on.

    In short complaints that headlights are controlled by the touch screen is absolutely insane - and I am one of the people really unsure about most functions being moved to the touch-screen. But that is not the area to bring up complaint, and it's important to know before complaining just what you can do outside the touch screen... far too many people seem to make assumptions there.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  32. Gasoline cars in the meantime... by FB36 · · Score: 0

    Gasoline cars in the meantime, burned countless people to death alive and they still do! Why? Because car companies do all collision tests w/ EMPTY GAS TANK! (Which is quite unrealistic test! How many car accidents happen w/ empty gas tank in the real world?) And guess what? Many car companies trying very hard to make future cars hydrogen, instead of electric! Why? Because it would be a lot easier/cheaper for them to switch producing hydrogen cars! But, realize, that would mean way more danger for the public in the whole world! Instead of potential fire hazards on the road, there would be potential BOMBS!

    1. Re:Gasoline cars in the meantime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hydrogen would cost close to $8/gallon equivalent, but could have a longer range.

      The reason to promote hydrogen is twofold.
      1) It's going to be more expensive than gas, leading to gasoline being seen as practical.
      2) If it succeeds, the traditional gas station would still have a weekly business from nearly every driver, not the case with electric.

    2. Re:Gasoline cars in the meantime... by Miles_O'Toole · · Score: 1

      There are excellent economic and consumer-friendly reasons to avoid hydrogen, but I have to be fair. It's extremely unlikely the on-board storage of hydrogen would turn cars into rolling bombs. Think more in terms of a gasoline-soaked sponge than a tank of gasoline and you'll have an idea how they're planning to store it. So yes, hydrogen fuel would probably burn quite nicely as it escaped after an accident, but I doubt very much whether it would explode.

      --
      Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former.
    3. Re:Gasoline cars in the meantime... by XXongo · · Score: 1

      Hydrogen would cost close to $8/gallon equivalent....

      Hard to say. This is very technology dependent, and better technologies for hydrogen production could possibly be extremely cheap... but whether or not this will become commercial depends on whether there is a pressing market need that pushes the technology toward low cost.

    4. Re:Gasoline cars in the meantime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuel tanks are not empty when crash tests are performed. They are full of dyed mineral oil. In fact, every fluid reservoir in the vehicle is tested at nominal level with a different color dye, so when fluid lines or reservoirs rupture, we can tell which fluids go where during the crash.

      My lab uses red mineral oil for fuel with a UV tracer in it. After the crash test, we look for the UV tracer and red dye at various places in the engine compartment and undercarriage.

      Obviously we don't do crash testing with flammable liquids as that would be dangerous

    5. Re:Gasoline cars in the meantime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think most people in the US think of The Hindenburg when they think of Hydrogen.

  33. But is it what people want? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    SUV's probably one of the worst for roll over accidents but people don't seem to care. As far as this claim of car sales Tesla has been on. Is this simply pre orders being finally fulfilled or actual sales or a combination? Can't count people who still do not have a actual car can you?

    1. Re:But is it what people want? by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Auto industry sales are only counted on delivery. This is why Tesla (and every other manufacturer) makes a distinction between "pre-orders", "vehicles in transit" and "sales".

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
  34. Re: Who will buy Tesla? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ford? Toyotaâ(TM)s? VW?

    After the stock crashes down to a realistic non-fanboi level, some other company that knows how to build cars by the millions will buy up Tesla and recycle the better tech while ditching the Musk inspired idiocy.

    Nothing of value will be lost when Tesla dies as an independent entity.

  35. Agree 100% by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A touchscreen in a car is a shitty design

    For the driver, that is exactly right. A touchscreen has no place in the business of actually driving the car. Maybe for the passenger it's fine, but for the driver, a touchscreen is a solution looking for a problem, and a dangerous one at that. And realistically, the passenger already has a large smartphone, which means the touchscreen is redundant.

    Of course the real reason they are replacing standard controls with a touchscreen is so they can wring out a few more dollars in profit. Touchscreens are cheaper to implement than physical controls.

    Now if we're talking about self-driving cars, then sure, bring on the touchscreen and the 100 other gimmicks. They can't get in the way of driving if you're not actually driving.

  36. Re:The chance that I'll get injured in a Model 3 i by apoc.famine · · Score: 1

    I think they're only safer if you're in them, not on them.

    --
    Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
  37. Of course by PPH · · Score: 1

    How is a Tesla going to get in a wreck when it's always being charged?

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  38. Stephen King: still not dead by XXongo · · Score: 1
    What's the point of posting fake news to slashdot?

    the purpose is to discredit ALL news, so people don't pay attention to actual facts.

    https://stephenking.com/

    1. Re:Stephen King: still not dead by lgw · · Score: 1

      It's a classic /. troll, one from the early days.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re: Stephen King: still not dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      #truefacts

    3. Re: Stephen King: still not dead by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fake news: XXongo is straight and totally not gay

  39. Racism by numbers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You have to work with reality. you know, where the rest of us live?

    You sure?

    Any working couple with full-time employment should be able to get a loan for that kind of money

    Can two full-time people working at Walmart get a 65,000 car loan? What about at an Amazon fulfillment center?

    Generally, a bank will only provide a maximum car loan between 10-20% of gross pay over four years. Minimally, only couples firmly in the middle class, with excellent credit, and no other car loans could afford the cheapest Tesla.

    Drinkypoo's "any working couple" ignores over 90% of black couples, 85% of latinx couples, nearly all native american couples, and a quarter of whites. Why would you leave them out? Do we need to march around your house and employer with "I am a man." signs again?

  40. Re:The chance that I'll get injured in a Model 3 i by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    Don't be silly, your local taxi can still have an accident. https://electrek.co/2017/12/14...

  41. That's how it works with tech... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, only the military can afford it
    Then, only the wealthiest people
    Then, only the middle class ...

    Eventually, it becomes the norm and hopefully even the poor can afford it.

  42. Low Probability. High Criticality by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The chances of an injury may be low, but we've seen that when it does happen, it tends to roll a critical for damage.

    Somewhat like the likelihood vs severity of an airplane crash.

    Did NHTSA measure criticality?

  43. bullshit radar going off by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey Rei/Elon, where is the actual NHTSA "lowest probability" link?
    All I see are #fakenews sites like tesla.com.

  44. It's not the car by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

    Shorting Tesla has little to do with believing the Tesla is a bad car. It's saying it's a bad (or overvalued) business. Lots of superior .things go out of business (see, BetaMax). But go ahead, buy the stock because you personally lock the car. Also, when we play poker, don't forget to bet based on how lucky you feel the cards are, and if they are your favorite numbers.

    --
    Your ad here. Ask me how!