You can install our site as a web app on your iOS device by utilizing the Add to Home Screen feature in Safari. Please see this thread for more details on this.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"The headlines are extremely misleading," Musk told CNBC in an interview at the DealBook Conference. "If fire risk is your concern, you'd have a great deal of difficulty being in any better car than the Model S. [The Model S] is 5 times less fire risk than the average gasoline car. Moreover, we've never had a serious injury or death."
Good, now can we all stop talking about it because it was ridiculous from the start?
Thanks for the link. Short but useful read and I liked this comment:
"...Moreover, we've never had a serious injury or death."
So, has there been a "permanent injury"? I'm wondering since Elon used to say "...to my knowledge there has never been a permanent injury in Model S"
Thanks for the link. Short but useful read and I liked this comment:
"The headlines are extremely misleading," Musk told CNBC in an interview at the DealBook Conference. "If fire risk is your concern, you'd have a great deal of difficulty being in any better car than the Model S. [The Model S] is 5 times less fire risk than the average gasoline car. Moreover, we've never had a serious injury or death."
In short term it is good for the stock. But what if several more Model S catch on fire due to road debris? They are really not planning to do anything about it?
Didn't Elon say 5 times less fire risk after the first fire? Now two fires later in a little over a month and the statistic is still 5 times less risk?
I am not sure I follow this statistic, and why it doesn't change? I had it down to below 2 times by now, and then you are comparing a brand new car, that shouldn't catch fire all too often, to cars that are in some cases more than a decade old.
Can someone please explain this to me?
I guess we are down to about 2 times less (60%). But the new car/old car distinction doesn't make sense to me unless there is a reason to believe that old batteries are more prone to catching fire than new ones (not impossible but haven't heard so).
OTOH, the Model S appears to have done extremely well in the second accident, fire afterwards or not, but that's not reflected on by the fire statistic alone.
Didn't Elon say 5 times less fire risk after the first fire? Now two fires later in a little over a month and the statistic is still 5 times less risk?
I am not sure I follow this statistic, and why it doesn't change? I had it down to below 2 times by now, and then you are comparing a brand new car, that shouldn't catch fire all too often, to cars that are in some cases more than a decade old.
Can someone please explain this to me?
Sure Sleepy;Didn't Elon say 5 times less fire risk after the first fire? Now two fires later in a little over a month and the statistic is still 5 times less risk?
I am not sure I follow this statistic, and why it doesn't change? I had it down to below 2 times by now, and then you are comparing a brand new car, that shouldn't catch fire all too often, to cars that are in some cases more than a decade old.
Can someone please explain this to me?
I am watching the live stream of Elon's interview right now and he is walking through the math and it doesn't add up. I am extremely disappointed that a rocket scientist is doing simple math wrong:
Elon: 1 in 1300 ICE cars catch fire. There are now 25000 Teslas on the road now, so 3 fires is 1 per 8000 cars or 5 times less likely to catch fire than ICE cars.
Seriously?
Why is the math wrong?
I'm figuring 8000/1300 = 6.15 times less likely
Because you have to annualize the amount of time each car is on the road.
In short term it is good for the stock. But what if several more Model S catch on fire due to road debris? They are really not planning to do anything about it?