"Impact Report" is a poor choice of words in light of all the autopilot crashes
If by impact you mean the very very very few AP crashes
Fact Checking Tesla's “Impact Report”
11–20 of 50 posts
Re: Fact Checking Tesla's “Impact Report”
#12Marketing. But its 2019, if you still believe Tesla doesn't have ethics problems, you haven't paid attention or don't care.
I don't care. If I buy an electric car, it will be because it goes faster than a petrol car.
Get ready for the dated South Park reference. There is enough smug people who like to smell their own farts.
Re: Fact Checking Tesla's “Impact Report”
#13I really like Telsa's mission, but stuff like this is why they get a bad rap. I don't understand why they try to oversell everything. You've got a good product and are making a positive impact, don't squander it by making claims that can't be backed up.
> You've got a good product
They have a product their buyers like, but the car doesnt have buttons or a center console. "Good" is in the eye of the beholder.
Tesla has a weird situation that despite a product that breaks often and doesn't have niceties, their customers have a high satisfaction.
Re: Fact Checking Tesla's “Impact Report”
#14I’m not stating anything other than this website is owned by Time, inc. Time, inc owners is currently on several boards for the oil and gas industry. https://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.a...
At least the conspiracy theories have moved on from “the shorts” to a more typical group.
Re: Fact Checking Tesla's “Impact Report”
#15The article claims Tesla is incorrect when they say that "the average ICE vehicle gets around 22 MPG", and counters with EPA stats showing that the average fuel economy of all vehicles in the US is 24.9 MPG. But these aren't the same thing. The set "all vehicles in the US" contains both ICE vehicles _and_ hybrid/battery-powered EVs. But Tesla is explicitly only talking about ICE vehicles, and Tesla doesn't specifical…
Don't forget that a substantial amount of fuel is burned while parked. Lights and other electronic equipment consume a lot of energy.
"In one recent report about police vehicle fuel consumption, the cruiser studied was found to idle 60% of the time during normal operation and used 21% of its total fuel while parked. While the engine provided 250 horsepower (hp), together all of the accessories needed less than 2 hp. (Air conditioning consumed the most power, followed by external lighting.)"
https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/idling_emergency...
Re: Fact Checking Tesla's “Impact Report”
#16I really like Telsa's mission, but stuff like this is why they get a bad rap. I don't understand why they try to oversell everything. You've got a good product and are making a positive impact, don't squander it by making claims that can't be backed up.
Are they squandering it by making such claims?
How many people do you really think are going to read their claims, then read that their claims are not fully backed up, and then decide to boycott the company?
Versus how many people read their claims, and have been reading their previous claims, and are already sucked into Tesla's "Saving the world" narrative.
For those people, stuff like this "Impact Report" aren't deciding factors, but are a part of a larger effort at Tesla to imbue a sense of 'higher purpose' or something along those lines.
There's little downside to this kind of fluff.
Re: Fact Checking Tesla's “Impact Report”
#17The article claims Tesla is incorrect when they say that "the average ICE vehicle gets around 22 MPG", and counters with EPA stats showing that the average fuel economy of all vehicles in the US is 24.9 MPG. But these aren't the same thing. The set "all vehicles in the US" contains both ICE vehicles _and_ hybrid/battery-powered EVs. But Tesla is explicitly only talking about ICE vehicles, and Tesla doesn't specifical…
afaik data is for new cars with ICE.
Re: Fact Checking Tesla's “Impact Report”
#18> Fact Checking Tesla's "Impact Report" > It's no surprise that the electric automaker is having a positive environmental impact, so why does it need to exaggerate the good and gloss over the bad? I have a similar view of this article as this article has of Tesla: Why does it need to exaggerate the bad and gloss over the good? The only hard number it criticizes is the number Tesla used for the average mileage of the…
> The only hard number it criticizes is the number Tesla used for the average mileage of the US fleet (25.4 vs 22) - nevermind that the higher efficiency would work in their favour: it would mean that the same number of Tesla vehicles displaces a larger number of ICE-vehicles.
I don't think your math is right on that- higher efficiency in ICE vehicles would mean that the Tesla vehicles displaces fewer ICE vehicles, would it not? It would make their claim that Tesla is "the equivalent of saving emissions from being released into the environment from over 500K ICE vehicles" closer to 425K ICE vehicles.
Re: Fact Checking Tesla's “Impact Report”
#19"Impact Report" is a poor choice of words in light of all the autopilot crashes
If by impact you mean the very very very few AP crashes
>the very very very few AP crashes
(tl;dr : 'very very very few' is entirely relative )
I don't know if comparing frequencies is such a hot idea with regards to a paradigm shift.
If that's the comparison you want to make, the few AP accidents that have happened are infinitely more than came before Tesla.
Since there is no A/B comparison to make in order to judge severity, maybe we should treat every AP accident as important and research worthy until there is a standard to compare against -- unless of course you want to compare AP to non-AP crashes, but that metric is mostly only useful for marketing AP towards people, not improving the system itself.
Re: Fact Checking Tesla's “Impact Report”
#20I really like Telsa's mission, but stuff like this is why they get a bad rap. I don't understand why they try to oversell everything. You've got a good product and are making a positive impact, don't squander it by making claims that can't be backed up.
> You've got a good product They have a product their buyers like, but the car doesnt have buttons or a center console. "Good" is in the eye of the beholder. Tesla has a weird situation that despite a product that breaks often and doesn't have niceties, their customers have a high satisfaction.
Don't make the mistake of letting your personal preferences or requirements cloud the information available. The cars Telsa make are selling well, so obviously there are people out there that do like them.
It doesn't matter what you personally think.