-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
And I am not going to avoid criticizing Sleepy just because we both want Tesla to succeed.
I think Jhall's point was that Elon and Sleepy both did the math wrong. But how can Elon say to the public that their intuitive statistics (or Sleepy's) don't apply to such a small sample?
In another thread, Mario Kadastik (who seems to be a nuclear physicist and statistician) explained in more detail why neither Elon's nor Sleepy's math is correct:
Ugh. Another Model S fire - 2013-11-06 - Page 87
I share Sleepy's distaste for misleading the public. But "annualizing" the numbers is not the answer. I don't know what Elon should have said.
I am not disputing this statistics but would like to know what source are you using that states their have been ZERO fires? thank-you
I agree with you that my math is not the right way to represent this case. All I was trying to do is to show how Elon should have done the math using his own methodology of proving that Teslas are less prone to catching fire than ICE.
The methodology that Elon used is flawed, and so is his math on top of that. I understand that the methodology is flawed, but if you are going to use that flawed methodology, then my math is the correct way to do it.
Not one person has been permanently injured or killed in a Tesla vehicle. Not one person has been permanently injured or killed in a Tesla vehicle. Not one person has been permanently injured or killed in a Tesla vehicle. Not one person has been permanently injured or killed in a Tesla vehicle. Not one person has been permanently injured or killed in a Tesla vehicle. Not one person has been permanently injured or killed in a Tesla vehicle. Not one person has been permanently injured or killed in a Tesla vehicle. Not one person has been permanently injured or killed in a Tesla vehicle. Not one person has been permanently injured or killed in a Tesla vehicle. Not one person has been permanently injured or killed in a Tesla vehicle. Not one person has been permanently injured or killed in a Tesla vehicle. Statistics?
Let's take a different look at this... Assume Elon is correct in that there is no structural/safety issue with the Model S. I also believe this to be the case. What would you do if you were Tesla?
1. Recall....what exactly would you be correcting if there is no issue?
2. Do a lightweight half-baked pseudo-solution like raise the car (which will only make the car susceptible to a different population of debris objects rather than eliminate the problem) ?
Either way, neither of the above is going to prevent more fires. Agreed that more fires that happen soon are going to be bad for the stock, but Tesla can do little to prevent that. It's much better to argue that there is no problem and explain that statistically, something like this is going to happen from time to time than to acknowledge there is a problem (especially when there isn't) and then have to explain why your solution (which was destined to fail anyway) doesn't work and that you will never have a solution.
What would you have wanted Elon to do after the Broder article? This created a perception problem out of nothing. Putting a half-baked solution like alarm sirens when battery is low to try to appease the masses would have done nothing except legitimize Broder's smear.
This fire issue is a perception problem. The only way to fight perception is using the power of persuasion. This is what I believe tesla will do. State their case persuasively. There is no other option.
1. Recall....what exactly would you be correcting if there is no issue?
2. Do a lightweight half-baked pseudo-solution like raise the car (which will only make the car susceptible to a different population of debris objects rather than eliminate the problem) ?
Either way, neither of the above is going to prevent more fires. Agreed that more fires that happen soon are going to be bad for the stock, but Tesla can do little to prevent that. It's much better to argue that there is no problem and explain that statistically, something like this is going to happen from time to time than to acknowledge there is a problem (especially when there isn't) and then have to explain why your solution (which was destined to fail anyway) doesn't work and that you will never have a solution.
What would you have wanted Elon to do after the Broder article? This created a perception problem out of nothing. Putting a half-baked solution like alarm sirens when battery is low to try to appease the masses would have done nothing except legitimize Broder's smear.
This fire issue is a perception problem. The only way to fight perception is using the power of persuasion. This is what I believe tesla will do. State their case persuasively. There is no other option.
RobStark
Well-Known Member
I don't care who is doing the counting. Comparing American vs American plus Mexican or Global statistics is invalid.
Given the extremely low statistical samples, essentially all math models are flawed (as you state). Given that's the case, the most critical issue is to correct the media produced perception that ModelS is flawed due to 3 fires. That as a flat perception is the most flawed conclusion by many orders of magnitude beyond the current discussion of his numbers of 5x safer and yours of 3x safer. I doubt Elon wanted to put a number on it at all, but stopping the media hammering even worse numbers into the public's mind took precedent and I agree. My suggestion would be to applaud the CEOs leadership, buy a long position, although if you really believe TSLA will move to $80 on the next fire, I think I'd hold off for now. There will definitely be another fire soon by any math. 3x, 5x, whateverX.
Chrisr400cc
Member
Did anyone caught the part at 4:30 in the video when he was asked about the bottom of the Model S and Elon just changed the subject?
smorgasbord
Active Member
I think Musk is feeling lucky. Just think what will happen when the third fire from running over something happens.
As a TSLA stockholder, I now feel like I'm gambling with him.
I'm not sure I like these odds....
As a TSLA stockholder, I now feel like I'm gambling with him.
I'm not sure I like these odds....
I have exactly the same feeling.
For some reason I think that Tesla engineers are searching for a solution (effective but not overly expensive). They don't have one yet. As soon as they find one, they will start making cars with the modified underbelly. If another similar fire happens after they find a solution, they will announce it and talk about a possible recall. If a similar fire happens before they have a solution - they are scr...d, and I'm scr...d with my TSLA shares. So basically Musk tries to buy some time.
I wish Musk and myself luck in this gamble.
StapleGun
Member
Sleepy is correct in pointing out that Elon framed those stats in a misleading way. It reminded me of the funny math in the "Lease a Model S for under $500" campaign. These are the only two times I've really been dissapointed by Elon/Tesla. But no company is perfect, and I'm stilll long.
The truth about the stats however is that the sample size is still far too small to be making convincing arguments one way or another. Elon said on Oct. 4th that Tesla'a had driven "over 100 million miles", we can generously guess that this number is about 150 million by now, this ballpark estimate is close enough to prove the point. In the US there is an average of 8.5 deaths per 1 billion kilometers driven or about 1 death per 73 million miles driven. If a Model S rolled off a bridge tomorrow and killed 4 people inside suddenly Tesla averages 1 death every ~40 million miles and is on the wrong side of that statistic. It's great that nobody has been killed or permanently injured yet but that is not yet enough to prove much. It will be years before there are enough miles driven to make these numbers meaningful. The same goes for fire risk, but the stats are not quite as straightforward there. Even if we had national and Tesla stats for "total debris collisions" and "% of debris collisions that resulted in a fire" we'd probably just realize it's a tiny sample size still.
Luckily, the incredible crash test results for the Model S do point to a very safe car. So if I had to place bets I would say after 10 billion miles driven the Model S will be below the national average for deaths per miles driven.
The truth about the stats however is that the sample size is still far too small to be making convincing arguments one way or another. Elon said on Oct. 4th that Tesla'a had driven "over 100 million miles", we can generously guess that this number is about 150 million by now, this ballpark estimate is close enough to prove the point. In the US there is an average of 8.5 deaths per 1 billion kilometers driven or about 1 death per 73 million miles driven. If a Model S rolled off a bridge tomorrow and killed 4 people inside suddenly Tesla averages 1 death every ~40 million miles and is on the wrong side of that statistic. It's great that nobody has been killed or permanently injured yet but that is not yet enough to prove much. It will be years before there are enough miles driven to make these numbers meaningful. The same goes for fire risk, but the stats are not quite as straightforward there. Even if we had national and Tesla stats for "total debris collisions" and "% of debris collisions that resulted in a fire" we'd probably just realize it's a tiny sample size still.
Luckily, the incredible crash test results for the Model S do point to a very safe car. So if I had to place bets I would say after 10 billion miles driven the Model S will be below the national average for deaths per miles driven.
Exactly my feeling - you are reading my mind.
It took them a few days to fix that embarrassing lease calculator, so I have some hope that they will also fix this situation.
Regarding the battery punctures I think that they do not have a solution yet, so they are trying to buy some time. But I'm optimistic long term.
Norbert
TSLA will win
If the fire is not from a collision, does that make it better or worse? Fires in gasoline cars also come from overheated engines, for example. In my mind, that's worse, not better, since in an accident there is damage in any case, already. And I don't get the distinction between old and new cars either. Cars do get old and it's not good if they burn. So far I haven't heard anyone claim that old batteries burn more easily, and until someone does, I don't see the point.
Norbert
TSLA will win
I don't understand some comments in this thread. Do you seriously think it is not worth pointing out that a Model S is more safe than a gasoline car? (Even if there is another fire.)
smorgasbord
Active Member
If you could look at the rate of fires in cars under 3 years of age, whether you do it on a per car basis or a per vehicle mile basis, the current stats might show that Teslas are catching fire at a higher rate. Maybe an old Teslas will catch fire at a lower rate than old ICE cars, but right now people are worried about a new car to new car comparison.
Does Tesla really want people to make the trade-off of surviving a really bad crash while having a relatively minor incident render the car a total loss versus an ICE car?
If I run over something in my low-slung BMW or Audi I might expect a bent suspension component or a damaged exhaust pipe or even a broken differential, but I would not expect the car to catch fire and be a total write-off. We're not talking deaths here (I don't believe running over a trailer hitch in a BMW would cause the occupants to die), we're talking rending the car a total loss insurance-wise.
StapleGun
Member
Of course it's worth pointing out, but I feel like it should be done in a way that doesn't abuse statistics.
Similar threads
