191–200 of 408 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only were they aware of the problem, they did the calculus and decided to release a brand new model knowing this issue effected . http://consumerist.com/2014/03/25/gm-knew-chevy-cobalt-ignit...
"Take the nubmer of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probabilty rate of failure, B, multiply by the average ouf-of-court settlement, C. A x B x C = X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not only were they aware of the problem, they did the calculus and decided to release a brand new model knowing this issue effected . http://consumerist.com/2014/03/25/gm-knew-chevy-cobalt-ignit...
"Take the nubmer of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probabilty rate of failure, B, multiply by the average ouf-of-court settlement, C. A x B x C = X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've worked in industrial process systems where firmware is pushed out to millions of devices. The process is pretty rigorous - first the engineering team develops a candidate build, they run it through full regression and acceptance. Once it passes all the various code quality tests (coverage, static analysis, etc...), it's signed. Only code which is signed can be run on the production bootloader. The process requir…
I've done the same at smartphone OEMs, and I can tell you, even after all the precautions and testing similar to what you said, there's always a few units that get stuck in a bootloop or fail to update out of millions. That a happening for a car instead of a phone is much more dangerous.
If so then you're right, they've made a terribly unsafe decision.
But if you have to stop the vehicle, put it in park or off, before it actually updates the software, then a bricked car isn't exactly dangerous, just a massive inconvenience and a source of incredible frustration.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Take the nubmer of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probabilty rate of failure, B, multiply by the average ouf-of-court settlement, C. A x B x C = X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."
Cost-benefit analysis, psychopath style.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Take the nubmer of vehicles in the field, A, multiply by the probabilty rate of failure, B, multiply by the average ouf-of-court settlement, C. A x B x C = X. If X is less than the cost of a recall, we don't do one."
Which company do you work for?
Elon is revealing too much hubris in his messaging. You can treat people around you like that, but lining up too many people against you is foolish. His intent is to PR+burnish the added safety feature. Instead of selling it as an objective demonstration of the leadership tact that Tesla takes in ensuring driver security, he gets passive-aggressive. Instead of laying out a tremendous history of safety as a foundation…
there is a risk of a bad accident that could be bad pr. that risk exists with or without the arrogance. elon musk has a high tolerance for calculated risk. that's why he's a billionaire and you and i are 2nd guessing him on hacker news.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My feelings too. However, as much as I like steel, I find it incredible that most cars use very heavy materials, e.g. steel, instead of aluminium, plastic, carbon fibre and titanium. Such materials are common on bicycles and planes. Moving a tonne or two of steel around is a real waste, particularly when it rusts. At least with this wondercar the bottom is flat and aerodynamically sound, unlike all of those legacy ve…
Well, it's not like they can just redesign the entire platform at this point. Slapping some titanium on is probably the best move they can make right now. It should satisfy any government and customer concerns for a problem that was pretty rare to begin with. As for the other materials we've been using them sparingly in vehicles. The new Ford F150 is using much more aluminum, enough to bring the weight down by about…
The main drawback of aluminum body panels is that it's difficult (i.e. expensive) to make them. I would imaging fatigue (from vibrations, for example) is also a larger problem in this application with aluminum than it is with steel.
Citation on difficulties of fabrication (introduction paragraphs): http://www.thefabricator.com/article/stamping/warm-forming-o...
Additional considerations when designing dies for aluminum forming: http://www.schulergroup.com/major/us/technologien/produkte/a...
A list of some cars using aluminum body panels: http://www.paintgages.com/List-of-Car-Manufacturers-who-use-...
Here is full statistical analysis of why it was a real problem.
http://www.teslamotorsclub.com/showthread.php/24190-Discussi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly why. They're gently poking fun that Tesla vehicles are extremely safe, especially compared to fires - and then sticking it to critics further by actually announcing improvements to further reduce the already very low numbers of fire and further increase the already highest rating ever for a safety check for a vehicle. Well done Tesla and Elon.
And yet, I can't help but feel they're being very, very defensive over it. I can't blame them, of course, given how something trivial like a car fire (trivial given the average frequency of them) is turned into a national news event. At the same time, Tesla's attention to quality and perfection and what-have-you will end up in them being heavily scrutinised. It's not that different from Apple in that respect; random…
"We believe these changes will also help prevent a fire resulting from an extremely high speed impact that tears the wheels off the car, like the other Model S impact fire, which occurred last year in Mexico. This happened after the vehicle impacted a roundabout at 110 mph, shearing off 15 feet of concrete curbwall and tearing off the left front wheel, then smashing through an eight foot tall buttressed concrete wall…
Exactly why. They're gently poking fun that Tesla vehicles are extremely safe, especially compared to fires - and then sticking it to critics further by actually announcing improvements to further reduce the already very low numbers of fire and further increase the already highest rating ever for a safety check for a vehicle. Well done Tesla and Elon.
Anyway it's a bit of a Streisand effect. They are focusing on something and making it stand out even more.
When in the minds of the general public it very well would be forgotten. Or not even known about. Not everyone pays attention to what the tech press says, what hackers think, or what Road and Track cares about.
Lastly they are attaching a negative to a positive emotion buying experience. People buy cars on emotion. And the whole idea of discussing safety and accidents in this detail on something that is an emotional purchase doesn't work in my opinion. It's raining on the mind game parade.