I hate to defend Tesla because I hate the owner and there are serious issues with things like having the emergency escape door latches hidden and difficult to access…
But there were 1.5 million Pintos affected by the safety recall across 5 model years. Tesla sold more than that many cars last year alone, and estimates are they’ve sold about 7 million vehicles total.
The fire fatality rate was higher for Pinto than Tesla.
*Opens /all*
*3/first 5 posts “tesla” or “musk”*
“You don’t hear about it.”
My dude it’s all I hear about ffs.
It’s more like ~3 pintos
Adjusting for inflation that hardly seems like a… oh fuck it. Things should be getting better not worse!
Then Elon and Tesla dismiss any valid complaints and criticisms as “far left gay communist propaganda” just 'cause he thinks everything’s politically motivated, 'cause he thinks everyone should agree everything he does and those who don’t are the enemy just like fascists and (also) actual communists.
Tesla doesn’t Equal pinto, it’s actually much worse
Because cover ups.
Because censorship
Tesla blames it on a software issue that will be “fixed in the next update”
Ah, yes, the thing we all haven’t heard and seen constantly for years. /s
Tesla’s exploding has been widely covered since the very first one happened, both as actual news and jokes/memes. This image is dumb as fuck, simply because of that. And I’d say with certainty that a LOT more people are aware of Teslas exploding than how many even know there was a car named Fort Pinto.
I’m all for Tesla going down the drain, and more of them exploding (without casualties), but report on that instead of making up dumb shit (that no one hears about it).You guys heard about percentages?
You are right. There were 3 million pintos sold. So far there have been 6 million teslas sold. So it’s much worse than we thought. 1970s tech joke of a car has a better fire rate Than a 2020s tech car. Thanks for bringing that up!
Utilitarianism is really only viable when the other option is EVERYBODY dies (give-or-take a percentage point or two); killing 10 to save 1000 only really works as an argument if the alternative is 1010 unavoidable deaths. 20 avoidable deaths and 80 avoidable deaths are still a fuck ton of avoidable deaths, especially when we HAVE the resources and the knowledge to prevent them but we just don’t because of profit margins and shareholders
For one thing, in the Pinto days we didn’t have information firehoses shooting streams of content at us 24/7. People were putting up “Hang In There” cat posters with scotch tape. And “You don’t have to be CRAZY to work here… but it helps!!!” Those were simpler times.
You are all getting portable incineration in car free of charge and you complain?! Some people are impossible to please!
there are more teslas than there are pintos?
That seems like a safe bet to me.
Yep, I can’t use this statistic for anything if it can’t compare to totals. I’m assuming that teslas, as a whole brand, outnumbers ford pinto, a single model, by at least 10x.
Mor than 3 million Pintos were sold and all Tesla models combined are under 10 million
With this in mind, the fatality rate is roughly the same (so far)
That would be a shockingly bad statistic for Tesla to be on par with a Pinto. Yikes
deleted by creator
Calling it now: In the future, it’ll eventually come out that manufacturers knew EV batteries were not suitable for extreme temps (explode in extreme heat, won’t hold a good charge in extreme cold), and there’s been a massive industry push to keep these issues out of talking points.
Toyota will be vindicated in their push for hydrogen.
Yes Toyota will be vindicated any day now, as more hydrogen stations close and their sales go down. Any day now.
PS: the Mirai still has a quite sizable high volt battery, because fuel cells can’t ramp up fast enough and for regen.
Right. Couldn’t be the monopolies protected in the fossil fuel & auto industries. Just a totally organic, politically backed opposition to cheap fueling with one of the most abundant resources on the planet.
It’s not abundance that matters, it’s availability. It takes a ton of energy to separate (usually from fossil fuels) and then compress (to seven fucking hundred atmospheres). By the time you’re done it’s barely more efficient than gas itself, just with no local emissions. And it’s anything but cheap, it’s similar price to gas.
I haven’t charged my car at a “station” since my last road trip, almost a year ago. Plug it at home, ready next day. In summer, for free, and with green energy from solar panels.
If monopolies had so much power, BEVs and hybrids wouldn’t exist. Or they would support Toyota and launch H2 cars themselves.
Hydrogen is just inferior to batteries for passanger cars. Could be a solution for long haul where batteries start to be too heavy.
Please explain how a battery charged from fossil fuels is superior to electrolysis powered by fossil fuels.
Hydrogen is not created by electrolysis powered by fossil fuels. Most is created by SMR directly from methane.
But since you insist:
- charging a battery is about 90% efficient. You put 10 kWh in, you get 9kWh in. Discharching is more than 90% efficient, let’s say 80% source to motor. Pulling 10 kWh from the socket gives the motor 8kWh to work with.
- electrysis of water has a typical efficiency of 70%, in lab conditions 80%. Then you need to compress it, creating heat and losing another 10%. Finally, fuel cells are about 50% efficient, leaving you around 30% of the original energy. So pulling 10kWh from the socket leaves you with 3kWh to drive with.
That’s (among others) how batteries are superior to hydrogen.
My point is you’re gaslighting to pretend that fossil fuels burnt to power EV’s are better fossil fuels burnt to power electrolysis.
They both need the energy source to be made clean, but hydrogen will be cleaner at that point, regardless of the efficiency issues (which are already being addressed).
I just wrote why fossil fuels burnt for charging EVs are better than electrolysis. Not gaslighting, just math. Almost triple better in fact. Did you read it or just plugged you ears and sang very loudly?
And again, if you have fossil fuels you don’t do electrolysis, there’s better, more efficient methods to reform methane into hydrogen. Not close to the efficiency of batteries, but better than electrolysis. Use better arguments to defend your opinion, man.
And on top of that, think about the infrastructure. Compressing, transporting and even storing hydrogen requires complex equipment. I can generate green energy at home and charge my car with it, right now. We’ll, not right know as it almost midnight, but I did it earlier today. Not at some point in the future, not addressing issues and maybe and perhaps. Literally today. No transport, other than the cables from my roof to my car.
And if I didn’t have solar panels I could buy a generator for 300 bucks and create my electricity at home with some gasoline.
The problem is the cars, not the batteries. Tesla doors don’t work when the power is cut, and you have to know the manual backup method, and people die of smoke inhalation because they panic and don’t know.
You’re confusing cause & effect. The EV batteries catch fire, and then they get stuck in them due to system failures.
From what I’ve read, part of the problem there is that Tesla cut corners by tying all of the systems together on a single bus. It causes unrelated systems to suffer a cascade of failures during incidents.
EV batteries are still a problem: https://www.wired.com/story/ev-battery-fires-explained/
The cause is bad design. There are plenty of cars using batteries with the same or very similar chemistry that don’t catch fire.
Which car company invented an EV battery that doesn’t catch fire? Someone would’ve won a Nobel prize for that.
Every other one. Unless you mean when they’re damaged. All batteries can catch fire when damaged, that’s just the nature of concentrating energy.
And I hope I don’t need to tell you what can happen to fuel in an accident.
deleted by creator
So what are you saying is the bad battery design in Tesla batteries specifically?
