TL;DR: The CyberTruck is 17 times more likely to have a fire fatality than a Ford Pinto
If I had a nickel for every time a car company owned by a nazi sympathizer who wants to found his own exploitive company town made an infamously fiery car that you can hear rusting, I’d have two nickels. Which isn’t a lot, but it’s weird that it happened twice.
Not saying Ford wasn’t an exploitative nazi sympathizer, he was. But can’t leave the Dodge brothers out of some of the blame while you’re handing it out. They’re the whole reason companies have to put shareholders first, after they sued Ford for trying to invest dividends back into the company and employee wages.
If the fediverse wants to grow and have the half-intelligent populace take it seriously, it’s going to have to start moderating sources. Not censorship. Moderation.
Too many posts I have seen here in popular ‘subs’ are from a website who got it’s name from an Amazon product, looking to rile up the leftists with confirmation bias, turning it all into a misinformed echo chamber.
‘Chklafrknozk.biz reports <thing> people already <emotion> is <adjective>.’ Fuck off with the nonsense.
We aren’t supposed to be a mirrored version of existing social media. We are meant to be a fair version of it.
Don’t insult the intelligence of users. If you want the brains to follow you, stop being yet another version of the problem.
Simply tired of the garbage.
Edit: Grammar
Since I’m half-intelligent, I won’t pretend to understand most what you’re saying here.
I don’t think the article linked is nonsense, though. It certainly isn’t leftist anything, miss me with that.
But… importantly… There is a statistically correct way to complete the following sentence:
“The Tesla Cybertruck is ______ times more/less explosive than the Ford Pinto.”
If you disagree with my answer to that question, what is your answer? I showed my math, I even invite the readers to re-run the equation. If you re-run it, what do you come up with? I bet your answer will be informative and helpful to the conversation about EV safety, two elements that are the “sugar,” “spice,” and “everything nice” about good reporting.
Um yeah I just perused the source website and agree. It’s got an obvious anti-EV bias in both article sections, headlines and interpretations of data. The only author they seem to have for all their ‘news articles’ is a person that doesn’t even have the guts to sign off with their real name, instead using the alias ‘Kay Leadfoot’. They don’t even have an ‘about’ page, just a contact form.
This is just the blog of some dude that hates EVs. Hot garbage source.
Hey, boss… If you say my name and don’t knock on wood, I show up.
This place seems nice! I might post here in the future.
I do not hate EVs. Read my reviews of the Tesla Model 3, the new Dodge Charger EV, and the F-150 Lightning. If you don’t like to read, the TL;DR is that I very much like each vehicle. Like many pickup truck people, I specifically do not like the Cybertruck, but that’s because it’s a lousy vehicle.
You should keep an open mind - just because you disagree with me, doesn’t mean I have some unreasonable bias. I may have followed evidence to a different conclusion.
I do smile when Tesla fans ask me to announce my name. I already did! I’m Kay Leadfoot. You can learn more about me on my About page, which has definitely been there since Day 1. Unrelated to anything, please don’t call me dude.
Downvoted the parent post to help.
Well done. Thank you.
While i agree with your intent here i thing we should rather begin with a more thoughtful criticism of the articles, rather than criticizing the websites name or if it’s vibe can be considered pandering.
Like how the statistics used is hyperbolic in it’s conclusions. While 34,438 produced cars are many, but not loads in car terms (especially when compared to the 3,173,491 built Pintos) and the there have only been two actual accidents with fire fatalities leading to 4 deaths. (The Vegas firebombing should not count.) Sure it’s two to many but it’s not really significant.
On the other hand the article does point out something here, “only” 27 deaths did lead to a huge recall, and i for one am not sure that a company that have yet to commit for a NHTSA will adhere to a similar standard. And fire safety over all has been a long concern in Tesla cars.
Thanks Iceman. I loved your work in Top Gun.
I think you touch on something important here. Some folks say the sample size is too small, on a strict statistical basis. Automotive safety works on different scales, often fast-paced decisions are made about auto safety and we don’t wait around for “statistical significance” in an academically rigorous sense.
Ironically, the smallest production run of cars to receive a recall in the United States (that I could find) was… the Ford Pinto, because the accelerator pedal got stuck! That was its first year of production. All 26,000 were recalled 2 months after the model was released.
DOUBLE ironic… the smallest production run of pickup trucks to receive a recall in the United States (that I could find) was… the Tesla Cybertruck! ALSO because the accelerator pedal got stuck! All 4,000 were recalled a few months after deliveries started at scale, in the first full year of production.
Isn’t that funny? History doesn’t repeat itself, but it is basically a dirty limerick. And what an awful chapter of automotive history to repeat, our vehicles should be vastly safer in 2025 than they were in 1971.
Considering that statistically sigificant numbers here would be writen in blood a low threashold “better safe than sorry” approach deffintely is for the better.
And these are some crazy stats you found, thanks for posting that.
And the Pinto is actually cool looking.
Never forget that Chrysler did the exact same thing with the Grand Cherokee that resulted in deaths and never faced accountability.
"Top Secret " Love this movie!
Agree to disagree. I really hate this era of cars. Take a hot hatch, but make it as ugly as you can. Then make it as heavy as possible and slap an 80bhp iron block in there, that way you have the worst of both worlds in both power and fuel economy. But just for good measure, also give it a 3 speed transmission with no overdrive as one last final fuck you, just to make that the car is as slow—and gas mileage is as terrible as allowed by the laws of physics.
The 70s was by far the worst era for cars, especially American cars.
Whaaaaaaat??? 70s cars are beautiful!
Quick, someone get this person a Malibu on mags!
Even if I were to agree with you, the beauty of a 70s car is only skin-deep, given everything else that is wrong with them that I already mentioned in my previous comment.
Yeah, your laughably untrue comment that is pulling facts from some cheap economy cars in an attempt to generalize an entire era. lol
You can only think 70’s cars are beautiful if you weren’t alive in the 70’s.
They were UGLY AS FUCK then and now. Just piss poor design in every way.
Early 70’s was ok. 75-80? Atrocious
The zillions of W123 Mercedes from that period that are still running to this day are an exception to that rule, arguably one of the best vehicle designs ever produced.
Indeed, I had W123 200 with a 4-speed manual, Pierburg carburetor and the matching white steel hub caps. Unfortunately it was totaled by an idiot riding a Triumph motorcycle. I walked away unhurt, thanks to the thick German steel ,and the motorcyclists ended up in traction for 3 months.
I’ll be honest, I like the aesthetics, but yeah modern materials and gas mileage would be nice. Seatbelts too.
Seeing a modern vehicle after a crash and how the person is doing its incredible how much crash safety has improved. I’ve seen vehicles that barely look like vehicles and the person walked away shaken but largely uninjured
fucking thank you. So many people have disagreed with me over the years. its even more baby mustang than the mustang 2. Like its the third child thats not trying to act tough like the second child, or all muscle no brains like the first child.
If I could get one even in shit condition I’d want to rebuild it as an electric. I’d totally take a mustang 2 if I could get one too though.
Hell yeah. It would be so cool to find one and rebuild it.
For those who don’t know about the Pinto:
In 1978, Ford recalled 1.5 million Pintos because the fuel tank was prone to rupturing in rear-end collisions at speeds of 20 mph or higher. This was the largest recall in automotive history at the time.
Top Secret (1984) made fun of Ford Pinto
As a European who knew nothing about Ford Pinto, I thought they made fun of how cars always explode in movies.
Honestly curious as to why someone downvoted this?
Honestly curious as to why someone downvoted this too?
I was tempted to downvote this for continuity and lulz but I didn’t
It would have been fine, I was half doing that out of comedy, half doing it out of just shining a spotlight on some automated process that always adds exactly one downvote to every comment being added.
Etc. etc., etc. ?
Pointing out someone downvoting you attracts more downvotes. Don’t do that if you don’t want more.
Well I think it’s okay to honestly ask why someone is doing it, what the rationale was, as part of the conversation.
Might be someone who doesn’t like Jeremy and down voting top gear related comments. Either way, don’t think too much about it as there is always someone mad doom scrolling internet.
Was just honestly curious, that’s all.
To be more specific, the fuel tank was placed between the rear bumper and rear differential. In a rear end collision, the tank would get sandwiched by the bumper and differential, which had bolts protruding out the back and would pierce the tank, spilling fuel onto the road.
Additionally, rear end collisions would bend the frame in a way that jammed the doors so you couldnt get out.
They figured that people would die and their cost benefit analysis assumed a certain number of deaths and lawsuits. The resulting recall and larger than expected number of deaths and lawsuits made it a huge loss for them.
Wherever I’m going, I’ll be there to apply the formula. I’ll keep the secret intact.
It’s simple arithmetic.
It’s a story problem.
If a new car built by my company leaves Chicago traveling west at 60 miles per hour, and the rear differential locks up, and the car crashes and burns with everyone trapped inside, does my company initiate a recall?
You take the population of vehicles in the field (A) and multiple it by the probable rate of failure (B), then multiply the result by the average cost of an out-of-court settlement ©.
A times B times C equals X. This is what it will cost if we don’t initiate a recall.
If X is greater than the cost of a recall, we recall the cars and no one gets hurt.
If X is less than the cost of a recall, then we don’t recall.Chuck Palahniuk, Fight Club
That design is even worse than I realized. It’s fucked that didn’t put them out of business honestly
That’s only half the story and not really the part that makes it so significant. The recall was only done after a report sent to NHTSA was released to the public detailing the cost benefit analysis that safer fuel systems was considered more expensive to society than just allowing some people to die due to less safe cars and therefore the car industry shouldn’t have to meet the safety standards the NHTSA was proposing. This was a landmark moment in legal ethics and while it was pretty standard stuff in the corporate and regulatory world of the time (and today) and the dollar values assigned to human lives were based on NHTSAs own figures, not Fords it enraged enough people and a recall was done.
“Tort Museum”
Only in America
I didn’t have Ford Pinto vs Cybertruck on my Battle of Vehicles bingo card.
Okay but I kinda need to know what is on that card set
VW Vanbus stronk.
Reading this I heard a pakled
Ten times faster to rust out on ya too lol
No problem. steal $400 million from the taxpayers, clear the inventory - problem solved.
The cool thing is when you set records. Being the most anything is awesome.
It’s sarcasm, leave me alone.
My childhood car was a Pinto. I was very grateful it never blew up when I read about the issues many years later.
The majority of them had a recall to fix the lack of armor on the gas tank.
Wasn’t that just some PVC pannels zip-tied behind the tank?
it fixed the problem
Most of them had some rust issues and it was easy to replace the tank with a much better one anyways
I knew a girl in highschool who had one. Her dad had customized the shit out of it… put a V8 in the hatchback trunk … that think was a fucking rocket
It had nice lines. Must’ve been nice whipping that around while I was looking for a place to dock my Cutlass Supreme. Lol
Glad you didn’t blow up.
Who would have guessed the armored tesla trucks have armor to protect whatever is outside of the tesla
All caps doesn’t make your post more interesting. Just annoying.
The title of the article is in all caps. I copied and pasted it into the post field.
HOW WOULD WE KNOW THAT FORD USE TO MAKE BEANS?
How much of that is down to the electronic door locks keeping people from escaping?
New existential fear unlocked!
Thanks, dude.
but how does it compare to tanks in the “deaths from fire per vehicle sold” test?
What about the Crown Victoria?
Most likely to be late because everyone assumes you’re a cop? I don’t think the cyber dumpster is there yet.
That title is currently held by the Ford Explorer.
I honestly thought it would be the '90’s Ford Explorer/Firestone tires issue that would be the worst, but it seems the 2002-06 Explorer massive repairs at low mileage beats it.
this again? They didn’t even read their own reference for the fire stats…
With its decade-long production run, the NHTSA reported that the Ford Pinto and its famously flawed gas tank behind the rear bumper caused 27 fiery deaths with its knowingly negligent design. https://www.autosafety.org/wp-content/uploads/import/ODIPinto.pdf
Cherrypicking galore:
- They literally took 27 which is the fire deaths from rear-ending only (vs 41 fire fatalities from a 2.5 year period instead of the 9 years they mention
- They conveniently did not use the 1,626 pinto fatalities from those 2.5 years.
- They used the total number of pintos produced, not the number of pintos on the roads at the end of the analysis, which would be less than 2.2M.
At least they did get your clicks.
This ‘news article’ from OP is just some dudes one-man show blog, and looking through a few articles they seem to dislike all EVs not just Teslas. Absolutely garbage source, I’m not surprised you found errors.
yeah half the EV articles are about the CT on the blog. But I suspect it’s because the haters click more. What would be a valid analysis after a little longer because the CTs haven’t been on the roads long enough, is to compare them with the F150 Lightning. I suspect fire rates will be fairly similar between the two.
There was the original story a week ago about this and the “analyst” included the fireworks explosion in Vegas to get to their resiult.
yup. it’s quite disturbing that even a rolling industrial garbage container like the CT needs fake analyses to be ridiculed.
I don’t really want to get into a debate about specifics, but this has long been the case with Elon and Tesla/SpaceX.
Especially pre pedo comment, much of what gets said about him and his companies are much like including the fireworks. Fake, made up, or exaggerated shit meant to stir up extra hate for the circle jerk.
However, he has done so many blatantly bad things since then that there really is no reason to have to make shit up or do fake analysis, but it still happens and always has. The circlejerk needs to continue fake or not.
Facts getting in a way of hating on things we don’t like???
Yeah, facts aren’t very popular when it’s about shitting on the cybertruck.:D
