Welcome to Tesla Motors Club
Discuss Tesla's Model S, Model 3, Model X, Model Y, Cybertruck, Roadster and More.
Register

Bolt Availability

This site may earn commission on affiliate links.
Gm... GM... i think that company rings a bell... they were the ones who killed all those people to save a buck, right?

Death toll for GM ignition switch: 124

PROFIT ABOVE ALL. Is that the official motto?

Really, we're gonna play this game?

Just like Tesla saved a few bucks eschewing extensive testing rolling out Autopilot 1.0 in the Tesla that Joshua Brown ended up getting killed in?

You really want to go down that road? Really?
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Doug_G and Jaff
Really, we're gonna play this game?

Just like Tesla saved a few bucks eschewing extensive testing rolling out Autopilot 1.0 in the Tesla that Joshua Brown ended up getting killed in?

You really want to go down that road? Really?

Yeah... not even close to the same thing. Tesla didn't save a few bucks on extensive testing. And Joshua Brown did not use Autopilot 1.0 in the manner consistent the manual, nor Tesla's communications on the product.

GM, on the other hand, clearly knew that they had a defective part that put lives at risk. It didn't do what it was designed to do. Autopilot 1 is doing what it is designed to do. We can track every failure of AEB (the part of the technology stack that did not save Mr. Brown) across the global automotive fleet. AEB did not reduce all accidents to zero, nor reduce fatalities in such situations to zero. That doesn't mean they were all defective, nor that the Tesla Autopilot was defective. GM's despicable handling of this defect, and its ongoing handling of the ramifications is quite nauseating.
 
Last edited:
Gm... GM... i think that company rings a bell... they were the ones who killed all those people to save a buck, right?

Death toll for GM ignition switch: 124

PROFIT ABOVE ALL. Is that the official motto?
Most brands with key ignitions and airbags had the same problem as GM. Key ignitions can rotate to OFF if you hang enough weight on the them. Airbags do not work in the OFF position.

How many of those deaths were GM EV/PHEV's? This is an EV site, so perhaps you need to hang out on the Saturn board. Wait. Saturn was the EV1 dealer. Scratch that. Is there a Cobalt board?

The plaintiffs also named the NHTSA as defendants. So if GM won, the Fed would be on the hook. The outcome was not a huge surprise.
 
Last edited:
Yeah... not even close to the same thing. Tesla didn't save a few buck on extensive testing. And Joshua Brown did not use Autopilot 1.0 in the manner consistent the manual, nor Tesla's communications on the product.

GM, on the other hand, clearly knew that they had a defective part that put lives at risk. It didn't do what it was designed to do. Autopilot 1 is doing what it is designed to do. We can track every failure of AEB (the part of the technology stack that did not save Mr. Brown) across the global automotive fleet. AEB did not reduce all accidents to zero, nor reduce fatalities to zero.

Do you think it is purely a coincidence that soon after the Joshua Brown tragedy, Tesla and Mobileye parted ways? Quote from the Mobileeye Chairman: Tesla was "pushing the envelope in terms of safety".
Tesla says Mobileye was jealous, not worried about autopilot safety

Tesla is no more innocent than GM is.
 
Do you think it is purely a coincidence that soon after the Joshua Brown tragedy, Tesla and Mobileye parted ways? Quote from the Mobileeye Chairman: Tesla was "pushing the envelope in terms of safety".
Tesla says Mobileye was jealous, not worried about autopilot safety

Nope... Tesla was parting ways with Mobileye in terms of development far before that incident. You really believe that Tesla developed AP2 software object recognition layer without Mobileye in 3-4 months? Mobileye knew that Tesla was moving away before the end of 2015, as they started up their own "Road Experience Management" project. They were not getting autopilot data back from Tesla and they badly needed it for their own development to progress. If they were not parting ways back in 2015, why start up REM? Tesla was creating the largest autopilot data collection available and the rest of the EyeQ3 deployments don't have the data feedback, so you are limited to test fleets which produce very little data. Do you think it was a coincidence that Tesla was not announced as an EyeQ4 chip win and then a backtrack? EyeQ4 was unveiled in early 2015, and Tesla was never an EyeQ4 customer... which would be very strange if their roadmaps were aligned. The parting was clear enough back 2015, and Mobileye used this crash as PR to announce the lack of an EyeQ4 win with Tesla on their terms.

Tesla Autopilot rolled out in 2015, and look at the Mobileye public statements around that time and in Q1 of 2016 before the Mr. Brown's death. No such statements of contrition or fear around Tesla's use of the EyeQ3. It was just the opposite in fact. Further, if Mobileye did not want their EyeQ3 used in this manner, why did they supply it for all of 2015 and most of 2016, including after Mr. Brown's unfortunate death?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jaff
...
GM, on the other hand, clearly knew that they had a defective part that put lives at risk. It didn't do what it was designed to do. ...

False. GM did a study of the accidents related to the switch. This is what got them in trouble. If they had not, there would be no lawsuit.
The switch did exactly what it was designed to do, and the 30 million cars with this switch statistically were no more dangerous than other key type cars. They did acknowledge there was a very small risk. By acknowledging it, they were doomed.

But the Bolt does not have a key type ignition. We are waiting for someone to sue because they accidently turned off the car while drunk and crashed and the airbags did not deploy. If there is a GM document that says it is possible to turn off the car while driving, and says there is a potential risk, they will lose again.

Note that most Killer Key accidents by all brands involve impaired drivers and mostly under 25 years of age.

Why would a mechanical device normally affect just drunks and teens?
 
False. GM did a study of the accidents related to the switch. This is what got them in trouble. If they had not, there would be no lawsuit.
The switch did exactly what it was designed to do, and the 30 million cars with this switch statistically were no more dangerous than other key type cars. They did acknowledge there was a very small risk. By acknowledging it, they were doomed.

But the Bolt does not have a key type ignition. We are waiting for someone to sue because they accidently turned off the car while drunk and crashed and the airbags did not deploy. If there is a GM document that says it is possible to turn off the car while driving, and says there is a potential risk, they will lose again.

Your assertion is contradicted by the official investigations:

http://energycommerce.house.gov/sit...s/OI/20140915GMFootnotes/NHTSAreportfinal.pdf
 

"On a cloudy night in October 2006, three teenaged friends went out for a drive in a 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt. As they traveled down a two-lane road in Wisconsin, the driver veered off the roadway and lost control of the car. The vehicle went airborne before impacting a telephone utility box and multiple trees. The Cobalt’s air bags did not deploy. Two passengers lost their lives and the driver sustained serious injuries."

They forgot the part where the teen was drunk. And they forgot the death stats on hitting a tree with airbags that deploy. They forgot the speeding part. They forgot the part where a heavy weight was on the key ring.

Do you really believe that speeding while drunk and flying in the air into the trees was a safe way to operate a car, and was 100% survivable?
 
"...The number of consumer complaints related to the Cobalt and Ion did not stand out from peer vehicles, therefore the agency (NHTSA) did not pursue an investigation".

Again, this is not a Bolt EV.
 
Because it's built by GM. The profit at all costs isn't something that will ever change for them. As for most of the drivers under 25... yes, most people under 25 can only afford these inexpensive cars. And yes GM knew about the switch, and went so far as 'fixing' it, without changing the part number, incurring what appear to be forged approval documents missing several key signatures...

So, why take the risk on a company that puts profit above all, when there are so many better choices?

$37,500 for an ComplianceCube or $35,000 for sleek and sexy?
 
Last edited:
Because it's built by GM. The profit at all costs isn't something that will ever change for them. As for most of the drivers under 25... yes, most people under 25 can only afford these inexpensive cars. And yes GM knew about the switch, and went so far as 'fixing' it, without changing the part number, incurring what appear to be forged approval documents missing several key signatures...

So, why take the risk on a company that puts profit above all, when there are so many better choices?

Like what? What auto company is a privately held non-profit?

Ford? Toyota? Tesla? VW? BMW? Honda? Nissan?

Remember that some companies used slaves until they could not work anymore, who were then baked to crisp.

Would you say GM is more malicious than those companies?
 
The issue isn't profit, it's what one is willing to accept to get said profit. Be that making quality products or making a decision that lawsuits and human life is less expensive. See Ford Pinto.

Most cars at that time had the same gas tank design. Rear mount steel tank. One that didn't was VW, which actually was far more dangerous. In a frontal collision the gas tank was in your face. But you were not expected to survive a frontal impact in a VW.
 
Because it's built by GM. The profit at all costs isn't something that will ever change for them. As for most of the drivers under 25... yes, most people under 25 can only afford these inexpensive cars. And yes GM knew about the switch, and went so far as 'fixing' it, without changing the part number, incurring what appear to be forged approval documents missing several key signatures...

So, why take the risk on a company that puts profit above all, when there are so many better choices?

$37,500 for an ComplianceCube or $35,000 for sleek and sexy?

Because Tesla doesn't care about profit. That's why they sell thousands of ZEV credits to those dinosaur automakers that pump out the gas guzzling SUVs and pickups.

These automakers can buy ZEV credits "pennies on the dollar" from Tesla so they can delay having to come out with their own ZEVs.
You can actually make a very valid argument that Tesla pawning all their ZEV credits is actually SLOWING the proliferation of ZEVs.

How you like that?!

Du0hT6p.gif
 
I'm awe of the credits, I don't think it is going to slow EV adoption. it's going to take a long time for the gasoline engine to die off... I think the other manufactures would get tired of paying a competitor eventually...
 
I'm awe of the credits, I don't think it is going to slow EV adoption. it's going to take a long time for the gasoline engine to die off... I think the other manufactures would get tired of paying a competitor eventually...

Fact is those ZEV credits Tesla is selling is allowing other automakers to delay coming out with their own ZEVs. The automakers can't simply pay the $5k per credit penalty and keep selling cars in CA. If they don't come up with the required credits, they get fined AND they are no longer allowed to sell cars in CA until they make up that ZEV credit shortfall. That's why Sergio @ FCA is willing to sell the Fiat 500e at a self-proclaimed "$14k loss"....if he doesn't take that loss, he can't sell cars in California anymore.

Tesla is definitely in it for the $$$, just like GM and all the other automakers. Only real difference is their money comes from the sale of 100% electric vehicles instead of gas burners.
 
To be honest I really think that the car that could really make a dent in gasoline use could be the Chevy Volt. It will be much more affordable for a lower income family than the Model III, has no range anxiety, and since 80% of driving is commuting or local driving it would vastly decrease use of gasoline if it were sold in large numbers. We have both a Model S and a new Volt so have actual experience with both.

The logical progression of ev buyers looks to me like this:
1) high end buyers ... Models S and X
2) the buyers able to afford $50 to $60,000 ... the Model III (still really rich for most people)
3) the affordable car that will run most days on electric but be suitable in a single car family as well for long range driving, and be affordable for a bigger slice of the population .... Chevy Volt
4) Second cars for strictly city driving provided one has another vehicle for long distance driving .... Leaf, and other low range ev's

This leaves no place for the Bolt, except as a longer range version of number 4. Without fast charging like Teslas, there is really no place for the Bolt, or the BMW i3, etc except as second cars.

In general I agree with you. That was what the Volt was supposed to be, and why it scared certain parties enough to induce the remarkable smear campaign it received.

I think that ship may have sailed, however... I don't think a Volt is going to be substantially cheaper than a similarly equipped Model 3, and It lacks both the Tesla panache and the massive list of upgrades and optional features including Ludicrous mode and autonomous driving.

My Volt was a very good car. For five years, it took me everywhere I wanted to go with no headaches or hassles - and 66% of it on wall power instead of gas (folks with fewer road trips had higher numbers.) But I can't say I would have chosen it over what we expect the 3 to be at the same list price.