At the current rate of horrible fiery deaths, FuelArc projects the Cybertruck will have 14.52 fatalities per 100,000 units — far eclipsing the Pinto's 0.85. (In absolute terms, FuelArc found, 27 Pinto drivers died in fires, while five Cybertruck drivers have suffered the same fate, at least so far.)

top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 220 points 2 years ago* (59 children)

...and unlike the Pinto, because we are so deep into fucked-reality-ville, it won't get recalled.

  • source
  • hideshow 59 child comments
  • [–] 134 points 2 years ago (18 children)

    Ford's reasoning was that it was cheaper to pay out for the injuries and deaths than to change the car. Cybertruck has a much better plot armor, a fanbase that refuses to believe it's crap.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
  • [–] 53 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    I think that fanbase is staying to wane. But who knows, maybe the gas loving Maga rednecks will start buying...who am I kidding, most of them can't afford the ridiculous price tag.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
  • [–] 38 points 2 years ago (36 children)

    Nah. The Ford Pinto laid the groundwork for the NHTSA's regulatory control of forced recalls. The only way this thing doesn't get recalled for being dangerous is if Musk's D. o. g. e manages to undercut or defund the NHTSA.

    Additionally, other countries with better regulatory bodies won't even allow it to be sold or will require mandatory recall of these vehicles which means the end of the cyber truck. They can't even sell them because people don't want them.

    The other thing is that insurance companies can absolutely refuse to insure them and if I'm honest, they may be the main reason that the NHTSA doesn't back down from regulating them (insurance companies are a powerful lobby, and they absolutely can countermand the automotive lobby in some cases).

    My point is, it's more complicated than just "Musk is a government official now, and historically dangerous cars weren't recalled".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 36 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I'd like to thank you for this measured take in response to my unbridled cynicism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    To be fair, you made a good point. In the article it states pretty definitively that the NHTSA hasn't been allowed to have the Cybertruck independently crash tested which is bogus as hell.

    The fact that it can't force that from any car manufacturer doesn't really make sense. They haven't even received relevant data related to Tesla's in house crash testing and I can't even begin to understand how that's legal.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (12 replies)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 208 points 2 years ago (26 children)

    I love Elon Bad posts, but I think it's worthwhile to examine why Elon bad in this case.

    Like many reactionaries, Elon's business philosophy is pure tech-bro-libertarianism. And like all libertarians, he's stuck in the neoliberal mindset of less regulation (don't scrutinize) and more efficiency (let me be cheap), in order to create the safe space that industrialists need to extract, er create.

    He's literally said things like (paraphrasing)

    When I see a specification for three bolts I ask: why can't we do it with two?

    His transparent reasoning is that if he's allowed to cut corners, he'll save money today and consequences can be dealt with when they arise.

    He's following the software model of release a minimally viable product and patch it later. Only instead of user frustration at being beta testers, you fucking die maybe.

  • source
  • hideshow 26 child comments
  • [–] 87 points 2 years ago* (10 children)

    Him and his libertarian friends fuck up left and right. Crashing startups and just getting more money for another. Constant recalls. Blowing up rockets until it works.

    Yet they hold the government to a standard of being perfect and high performing with no room for failure. NASA can’t be blowing up rockets. As soon as they do the world comes down on them.

    And Trump is the biggest fuckup of all these guys.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • load more comments (10 replies)
  • [–] 48 points 2 years ago

    I think it's also worth noting that Elon Musk is a scammer. Every other word out of his mouth is likely a lie. He's been claiming to already have technologies available for his Tesla cars, his SpaceX rockets, etc, all ready to go and.. it never happened. Tesla full self driving? The Tesla taxis? SpaceX on Mars? The Tesla laughably stupid robots? Even those were faked.

    Claims after claims for decades and literally no results

    The guy is a full on bait and switch yet everyone seems to lap up everything this scammer says.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (7 replies)
    [–] 92 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I'm guessing that some people at the National Transportation Safety Board are about to get fired by Elon Musk.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 82 points 2 years ago (8 children)

    Cybertruck will have 14.52 fatalities per 100,000 units — far eclipsing the Pinto’s 0.85.

    Holy shit, that means the Cybertruck fatality rate is around 17 times higher than the Pinto's!

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    If you read the article is was specifically died by fire. Not any other cause of death.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 47 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

    Right but the specific issue with the Pinto was that it would explode into flames on a rear impact, so this is the appropriate metric.

    Like deaths from other accidents would skew the numbers anyway because 70s cars were death traps compared to today, but even in that context, the Pinto's explosions were alarming.

    Beating it on that isolated metric is a very special kind of achievement.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 76 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    The Pinto got well known for a couple of reasons.

    One, the classic "exploding in a rear end collision." The design flaw here was that in certain rear collisions, the fuel tank would be pushed into the rear differential. Not only could this rupture the fuel tank, it could also produce a spark. Boom. Lots of cars had this same design in the 70s, with the fuel tank low in the rear, right behind the rear differential.

    Two, the infamous Pinto Memo, which did a cost benefit analysis that determined it would be cheaper for Ford to not fix the problem, and just settle whatever cases came up. This very clearly inspired the Fight Club recall formula scene. Take note that the car used in that scene is a Lincoln Town Car, produced by Ford Motor Company.

    The kicker for the Pinto recall? What they did to fix it:

    • Two sheets of 1/8" plastic, each about 18" square
    • Some long zip ties
    • Layer the two sheets over the rear diff, zip tie them to the axle

    That's it. My dad pointed this out to me in his shop some time in the late 80s or early 90s. He had a Pinto in for an oil change or something, "Hey, let me show you this." It was such a hacky "repair."

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    Curious: how effective was that “repair”? Did it actually make a difference at all?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    It would have prevented the "spark" part of the failure condition, but not the tank rupturing part.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Stopping the explosions seems like a good enough sort of solution to me

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago

    A more appropriate solution would be a plastic shield designed to fit around the whole front of the gas tank, and then appropriately fixed to the vehicle, as opposed to "some hardware store shit."

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (4 replies)
    [–] 52 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    And some people wonder why the cybertruck is barely sold outside the US.

    Everything I hear about this thing is bad.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 28 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    It's barely sold outside the US because other places (like the EU) also care about the safety of people outside the vehicle. That's why European and Asian cars (except the models explicitly for the US market like the Tacoma) are designed for pedestrians to be deflected, while US cars are a moving brick wall which will squish them like a bug.

    Also, I suspect you'd need commercial plates and a special license to drive it most other places, due to the weight.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (3 replies)
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 36 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Is it me or are there guts in this picture?

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 17 points 2 years ago*

    Hard to tell. The picture was widely used in the media, and they're usually quite careful about that kind of thing. There's something reddish in it, but it could be material from the truck or its contents. One of the photos the police released of his guns had some red foamy material in it, another photo had some stringy red material (plastic?) lying in the road, and there were various red items in the bed too. I'll mark it NSFW just in case.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (3 replies)
    [–] 35 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Really took the wind out of my satirical comment that Musk wanted to bring back the Pinto.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 30 points 2 years ago

    The thing is a very obvious death trap to anyone that knows simple physics. There are videos testing what happens when a Cybertruck hits a hard wall at certain speeds. That thing didn't crumple at all until speeds greater than 35 mph. And even then it only barely crumples at all. The damage it could produce hitting another vehicle would be catastrophic and fatal.

  • source
  • [–] 27 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I was driving out of a parking lot yesterday just as a Cybertruck started to pull in off the street from the left. The driver was white-knuckling the wheel and was frantically looking around as I assume he could barely see out of the goddamn thing as he swung so wide he nearly clipped my car. He needed almost the entire driveway to make his turn.

    I cannot imagine dropping so much money on something so useless and so hideous.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
    [–] 26 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    What a dumpster fire that truck is.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I was thinking “What’s that red stu—oh…” Yikes.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 20 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It seems obvious in hindsight. Sheet metal doors will crumple in a way that can't be opened, trapping occupants. The fire doesn't need to start in the relatively safe and armored battery system. It could be pinched wiring causing a short that ignites plastic interiors, or a fire from another vehicle spreading to the cybertruck.

    I'm sure someone mentioned all this to them during design.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 17 points 2 years ago

    Garbage in, garbage out

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›