-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Norbert
TSLA will win
So are you only driving new cars, and selling them when they get older than 3 years? Is that the point?
I certainly would trade off death for a totaled car. Is there any question about that? However, personally I think Tesla places the highest value on safety, and the Model S got its NHTSA safety rating because of Tesla's priority on safety, not by accident (pardon the pun). And I'm totally certain they do everything possible, within practical limits, to further improve safety. It's just not something they talk about in public whenever something goes wrong, as even the Model S can't be perfect and once in a while something it can't be avoided to show.
- - - Updated - - -
It has to be a statistical statement one way or the other.
smorgasbord
Active Member
Lots of people do that, especially with leases. Their rationale is: "a car payment is a car payment, why not get a new car every 3 years while having the same car payment?" Furthermore, the 3 year period means all work is warranty work, and for BMWs and some others, even maintenance is included. People buy new cars to avoid problems.
But, my real point is that it does no good to say a 10 year old Model S will catch fire less frequently than a 10 year old ICE car if the 1 year old Model S catches fire more frequently than a 1 year old ICE car.
Are you now going to try to convince me that someone in a BMW, Lexus, or Mercedes running over a trunk bumper or trailer hitch would have died? Because I don't believe that.
StapleGun
Member
Sure but it doesn't have to abuse the stats. Pointing out the crash test data is a legitimate statistic that should be used as evidence of safety. As I detailed before though, it's way to soon to be using miles driven per death as evidence of safety. As for the fire risk, I've yet to see an apples to apples comparison of ICE vs. Model S numbers that actually proves anything.
I agree with this comment and made a similar one earlier. Although statistically at this point it may be too early to show this but clearly a battery that spans such a large AREA of the bottom of the car (vs gas tank and fuel lines) will have an inherent weakness if not protected properly. The EXPOSURE area is very large where, if hit hard enough, theoretically can cause a car fire causing a total loss of the vehicle. So far statistics is on Elon's side. We'll have to see what happens.
Norbert
TSLA will win
The problem is that in the media there are tendencies to create the impression that even a single fire is a disaster, as nobody hears much about gasoline car fires in the news (unless a gasoline-transporting truck causes a large disaster). That needs to be answered with whatever numbers are available, even if sample size and time are small. They aren't really that small, though, including Roadster experience. And the point is not really that they prove anything, but that they show that there is no basis for statements in the other direction, not a basis for creating a big scare about EV fires (at this point
). Media and certain parties try to create the impression that there is a problem with the technology, and that is why I think Tesla thinks it is important to primarily make the statement that this is not the case. Behind the scenes they are always looking to improve things, that should be taken for granted.
Last edited:
I too feel this to be the case. He will introduce a change and do nothing with the 30 K cars delivered by that time if a recall is too expensive and stat wise he will be OK. But wonder if the change will impact the swapping process.. hmmm maybe that's part of what they are trying to workout now and because of all of this deliberately reduced their production rate and blamed it on production issues?? hmmmmmmm
Norbert
TSLA will win
smorgasbord
Active Member
I guess what bothers me now is that Musk is making a huge mistake. Don't they teach the lessons from Tylenol, Odwalla, etc., in business school?
As CEO, Musk needs to get out in front of this thing, talk about the engineers analyzing the data, leaving open the possibility of making Model S even safer than it is.
Elon needs to look at this as an opportunity. He can talk about how "no-one has been permanently injured or died in a Model S," and how human life is the most important thing. And then he could say that even that isn't good enough in Tesla's quest to make the safest possible vehicle. Tesla can make it better without having to say that there's a bad problem. Good things can be great - great things can be made even better.
And, people shouldn't have to feel they're trading death avoidance for totaling a vehicle in an incident in which most ICE vehicles would probably just have repairable damage. Because, that's what I'm hearing from Model S owners now.
Denying that there's a problem simply sets Tesla up for a fall at the next vehicle fire. And, you know there will be another fire - the only question is when. Elon's making a big mistake.
As CEO, Musk needs to get out in front of this thing, talk about the engineers analyzing the data, leaving open the possibility of making Model S even safer than it is.
Elon needs to look at this as an opportunity. He can talk about how "no-one has been permanently injured or died in a Model S," and how human life is the most important thing. And then he could say that even that isn't good enough in Tesla's quest to make the safest possible vehicle. Tesla can make it better without having to say that there's a bad problem. Good things can be great - great things can be made even better.
And, people shouldn't have to feel they're trading death avoidance for totaling a vehicle in an incident in which most ICE vehicles would probably just have repairable damage. Because, that's what I'm hearing from Model S owners now.
Denying that there's a problem simply sets Tesla up for a fall at the next vehicle fire. And, you know there will be another fire - the only question is when. Elon's making a big mistake.
I think he is gambling that his slower production rate will help him out on his stats before he drops a production change for an improvement. They could slow production even further. I have seen this happen elsewhere. It very well could be they have been working on an improvement from October since the first fire and are near introducing it to production after tests. Based on how the market reacted and fear of people cancelling orders altogether he could truly be afraid of a huge panic that could do more harm than being forthright. It's a tough situation for him as a CEO. Either way his intentions are good I am fully convinced. We'll see what happens.
==================================================================================
Quote from an article I just read (basically what I said above on Elon's fears):
"The agency doesn’t have a history of forcing expensive recalls, said Sean Kane, president of Safety Research & Strategies, Inc., a Rehoboth, Massachusetts-based company that consults on automotive issues for attorneys and advocates for tougher regulations.
“If I’m Tesla, the least of my fears is NHTSA,” Kane said. “The bigger fears are Wall Street and consumers.” "
Last edited:
This is based on ZERO information. If you were in LA or SF where the Tesla service centers send cars to the body shop every day you might see this differently. There are dozens of Teslas there at any time. Most people have no idea how many accidents there are with brand new cars. Pretty much the same as old cars. A lot.
I agree with this. It was very disappointing to hear Elon respond to the question about "putting us in the room when he finds out about the fire". Paraphrasing his response is to "sit back and see how others react". To me that signifies arrogance (which his usual lack of has made me a fan and shareholder). Even if I know I designed and tested a really safe vehicle, if someone questioned a design flaw, backed with real-world incidents, a leader, truly with saftey as the number one concern, would go re-check the design. Go over it with a fine-tooth comb. Get "fresh eyes" to double and triple check others work, and ultimately run a few hundred model 's' over varying objects at varying speeds. Yes it would be expensive, but short term pain, vs. long term gain. Just cause its good, does not mean it cannot be better. As an x reservation holder, i want to know when my two kids are strapped in the back seat, that the car is safe, from everything including minor road-debris. To me to say, sit back and gauge the reaction is a response that ALMOST says lets see where our valuation goes, if sales are affected etc. I learned a long time ago as a camp counselor, you look after the kid, and everything else takes care of itself. Which is why great CEO's (which I feel Elon is) do not care about the stock, you look after the companies main focus, and everything else takes care of itself.
as for the stats, i agree with what has been said. small sample size, and too much difference between comparison groups to draw any meaningful or even probable conclusions. To "spin" them one way to bring Tesla up, is equivalent to the media "spin" dragging Tesla down. both wrong, and both leaving the well-informed with a dubious frown.
oh last point, as for that tesla calculator for the lease, they just sent out the Canadian leasing info, and there was still a spot for time saved for not stopping for gas, which i still find weird.
Last edited:
Chickenlittle
Banned
Are you now going to try to convince me that someone in a BMW, Lexus, or Mercedes running over a trunk bumper or trailer hitch would have died? Because I don't believe that.[/QUOTE]
your not trying to convince me that no one driving a BMW, Lexus or Mercedes has been seriously injured or died? Because I don't' believe that
- - - Updated - - -
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.[/QUOTE]
Would you also survive crashing through a concrete wall at about 100 mph in either your BMW or Mercedes ? No phrased that wrong would you're expect to be injured in an accident like that? If so look at the pictures elsewhere on the forem of a Mercedes that t boned a tesla at slower speed, that driver could educate you on that
your not trying to convince me that no one driving a BMW, Lexus or Mercedes has been seriously injured or died? Because I don't' believe that
- - - Updated - - -
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.[/QUOTE]
Would you also survive crashing through a concrete wall at about 100 mph in either your BMW or Mercedes ? No phrased that wrong would you're expect to be injured in an accident like that? If so look at the pictures elsewhere on the forem of a Mercedes that t boned a tesla at slower speed, that driver could educate you on that
Hello folks,
i dont have a good feeling after hearing elon's comments about the third fire. He must know, that alot of investors and buyers are human and are very irritable right now for any other fire news from tesla. If there is another tesla fire news in near term, the reaction from the market will be far worse. It would have been much much better if he told that they are analyzing the issue for further improving the bottom of the car. He did neglect the psychological effect of this issue on the investors and future buyers.
Before future tesla buyers start associating tesla with vehicle fires, elon HAS to step up and bring an improvement to the car.
Because thats the right thing to do....
i dont have a good feeling after hearing elon's comments about the third fire. He must know, that alot of investors and buyers are human and are very irritable right now for any other fire news from tesla. If there is another tesla fire news in near term, the reaction from the market will be far worse. It would have been much much better if he told that they are analyzing the issue for further improving the bottom of the car. He did neglect the psychological effect of this issue on the investors and future buyers.
Before future tesla buyers start associating tesla with vehicle fires, elon HAS to step up and bring an improvement to the car.
Because thats the right thing to do....
Last edited:
The car is fine and doesn't need improvement. He already did the right thing. The right thing to do is to stop obsessing over a non event.
In other "news", I decided not to go ice skating today. Also, my garage is not levitating. (Shall I go on?)
Agree, we're all obsessing over a non-event here. Lets wait another year to see how the stats pan out, so far we know its better than gas cars.
OK my random thoughts
What is with the total loss being an issue? That is what insurance is for. If 1 in 5,000 Teslas are a total loss in any given year in this type of situation where an ICE would not be and we assume that the average replacement cost is $100,000 then that costs the insurance companies about $20 per annual policy in that group of 5,000 Teslas. ($100,000/5,000=$20) Lets assume they really don't like you and they mark that cost up for 500% and they add $100 per year on Tesla policies. Well, an extra $100/year certainly isn't going to keep me from buying a Tesla.
From the investor perspective Elon knows the order rate. If it were slowing down significantly the response would probably be different. The concern would be if Tesla is not ahead of the public perception by the time the order rate drops off it will be too late. I really have to wait and see on that and just have faith but if all your money is in TSLA maybe it is better to sell and lock-in profits. In my informal surveys I haven't actually found anyone even aware of the Tesla fires until I tell them. As I explain it is due to an accident and not spontaneous they don't seem to be too bothered about it and are happy to learn that the passenger cabin is well protected. My co-worker is still saying he will buy a Gen III when it comes out to replace his E-Class.
As far as the Nissan Leaf not having fires I guess Tesla doesn't publicize this much but Nissan wanted the most stable battery technology since apparently they were very afraid of battery fires and/or didn't want to bother with thermal management. In any event this is why the Leaf doesn't catch fire and/or it may be due to ground clearance and/or it may be due to more miles off the highway. The battery technology Tesla uses (NCA) has higher energy density, provides more power, lasts longer, but is also the most unstable. This is a trade-off. Tesla doesn't want batteries that have to be replaced every 5 years and they want their cars to have a long range and be fast. I don't know but I would rather have a Tesla than a Leaf even knowing I have a 1 in 5,000 chance every year my car might get totaled from a battery fire.
What is with the total loss being an issue? That is what insurance is for. If 1 in 5,000 Teslas are a total loss in any given year in this type of situation where an ICE would not be and we assume that the average replacement cost is $100,000 then that costs the insurance companies about $20 per annual policy in that group of 5,000 Teslas. ($100,000/5,000=$20) Lets assume they really don't like you and they mark that cost up for 500% and they add $100 per year on Tesla policies. Well, an extra $100/year certainly isn't going to keep me from buying a Tesla.
From the investor perspective Elon knows the order rate. If it were slowing down significantly the response would probably be different. The concern would be if Tesla is not ahead of the public perception by the time the order rate drops off it will be too late. I really have to wait and see on that and just have faith but if all your money is in TSLA maybe it is better to sell and lock-in profits. In my informal surveys I haven't actually found anyone even aware of the Tesla fires until I tell them. As I explain it is due to an accident and not spontaneous they don't seem to be too bothered about it and are happy to learn that the passenger cabin is well protected. My co-worker is still saying he will buy a Gen III when it comes out to replace his E-Class.
As far as the Nissan Leaf not having fires I guess Tesla doesn't publicize this much but Nissan wanted the most stable battery technology since apparently they were very afraid of battery fires and/or didn't want to bother with thermal management. In any event this is why the Leaf doesn't catch fire and/or it may be due to ground clearance and/or it may be due to more miles off the highway. The battery technology Tesla uses (NCA) has higher energy density, provides more power, lasts longer, but is also the most unstable. This is a trade-off. Tesla doesn't want batteries that have to be replaced every 5 years and they want their cars to have a long range and be fast. I don't know but I would rather have a Tesla than a Leaf even knowing I have a 1 in 5,000 chance every year my car might get totaled from a battery fire.
Similar threads
