Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday July 07 2017, @08:47AM   Printer-friendly
from the crash-tests-dummies dept.

Forbes reports on Tesla's reaction to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety's crash test safety rating for the Tesla Model S:

Tesla does not take criticism well. Tesla has long had an attitude that anything said about the company, its products or CEO that isn't absolutely hagiographic is tantamount to heresy and anyone who disagrees hates humanity and the planet. Thus I was disappointed but not at all surprised to see the company's official, dismissive response this morning to the latest batch of crash test results from the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, which didn't reinforce the company line that everything it does is the best ever.

The Tesla Model S received only an "acceptable" rating from IIHS on its small overlap frontal crash test, a notch below the top rating of "good," with slack in the seat belt allowing a crash test dummy's head to hit the steering wheel despite the cushioning of the airbag. The less than optimal result comes after Tesla had said it had corrected the problem in the wake of a similar result in an earlier test.

A Tesla spokesperson's response was to besmirch IIHS. "IIHS and dozens of other private industry groups around the world have methods and motivations that suit their own subjective purposes." Yes they do. IIHS's purpose is to protect drivers and of course, in turn, reduce the payouts for insurance companies.

Also at CNET and Business Insider.


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @09:18AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @09:18AM (#536056)

    Tesla is shit. Yeah that's right. I said it. Dox me bro.

    • (Score: 2) by Open4D on Saturday July 08 2017, @01:54PM

      by Open4D (371) on Saturday July 08 2017, @01:54PM (#536530) Journal

      Whoever moderated this insightful should be banned from getting mod points.

      I wouldn't care if we were talking about the worst person in human history and the worst company ever. A post consisting of "fuck [that person]" and "[the company] is shit" adds nothing to the discussion.

  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday July 07 2017, @09:35AM (2 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 07 2017, @09:35AM (#536060) Journal

    Did or did not the car landed on the barge?
    Well, as it did, that's acceptable, why is he protesting?

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
    • (Score: 2) by MostCynical on Friday July 07 2017, @12:37PM

      by MostCynical (2589) on Friday July 07 2017, @12:37PM (#536086) Journal

      It was supposed to do it backwards.

      --
      "I guess once you start doubting, there's no end to it." -Batou, Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @01:19PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @01:19PM (#536098)

      It did, but then the barge blew up.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by ledow on Friday July 07 2017, @10:30AM (8 children)

    by ledow (5567) on Friday July 07 2017, @10:30AM (#536066) Homepage

    Sorry, but any accident where your head hits the steering wheel during an airbag deployment means death.

    If the airbag chose not to deploy? That's a different matter (but see below).

    However, the airbag deployed. Thus you should not be able to hit your head in any realistic scenario (i.e. so long as a truck doesn't plough over your car and shove your head forcibly into the wheel).
    Any standard test scenario should not be able to make your head hit the wheel in such a circumstance. If they can, I'm surprised you don't just fail immediately. I'm not sure what the EuroNCAP test is for this but I imagine it's MUCH harsher on any contact with the wheel in such circumstances, and that's applied to much smaller and cheaper cars than your average American behemoth.

    And... Is this stupid Americans with their no-seatbelt airbags ridiculousness again? Put on a seatbelt, automatically your head CAN'T hit the steering wheel. And then the airbag is there to prevent serious whiplash injury, basically, not stop your whole body weight being shoved into the dashboard.

    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @01:21PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @01:21PM (#536099)

      From the summary:

      slack in the seat belt allowing a crash test dummy's head to hit the steering wheel despite the cushioning of the airbag

      Glad I could help you to understand the test.

      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ledow on Friday July 07 2017, @02:27PM

        by ledow (5567) on Friday July 07 2017, @02:27PM (#536121) Homepage

        And thus, total test failure should be expected.

        Seat belt failed to restrain.
        Seat belt pre-tensioner not fitted or failed to fire.
        Airbag insufficiently deployed or inadequate.

        How many other things involved in a driver restraint system would you like to fail, Tesla? Because that's pretty much all of them.

        I'm surprised they would pass a car as road-legal with those kind of failures in this day and age.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday July 07 2017, @03:46PM (5 children)

      by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday July 07 2017, @03:46PM (#536147) Journal

      Sorry, but any accident where your head hits the steering wheel during an airbag deployment means death.

      If the airbag chose not to deploy? That's a different matter (but see below).

      However, the airbag deployed. Thus you should not be able to hit your head in any realistic scenario (i.e. so long as a truck doesn't plough over your car and shove your head forcibly into the wheel).

      So, been to a lot of accident scenes as a responder, have you?

      No, you haven't. Because you really don't know what you're talking about.

      A) Head impact on a steering wheel is a very serious injury which requires immediate transport to a trauma center. People do die from it. It is not automatically a death sentence.

      B) Just because an airbag deploys does not mean that the head cannot still impact the steering wheel. It can. After being cleared to approach the vehicle by an incident commander, one of the first things a responder at EMT level or above does after ensuring your patient is breathing and has a patent airway and pulse is move the airbag so one can see if the steering wheel is damaged and inspect the forehead of the patient for an impact mark.

      C) You're right. Not wearing a seatbelt is stupid. And of course you always wear yours properly fitting, including the lap belt so you don't get a compression injury on your abdomen, right? RIGHT?

      Yeah. Now go back to driving school, thanks.

      --
      This sig for rent.
      • (Score: 2) by ledow on Friday July 07 2017, @04:05PM (4 children)

        by ledow (5567) on Friday July 07 2017, @04:05PM (#536154) Homepage

        A) Yes. So potential death. Let's not play this down. Serious head injury requiring trauma care is a potential death. It just depends on who responds to your accident (if anyone).
        B) Yes. Like in the scenario I said, for instance. And they check because your head touching the wheel is INCREDIBLY serious and potential death (as above), even if they are treating you and don't happen to realise you did that.
        C) Yes. By law. Every day. Since the day I learned to drive. And it is one belt that does lap-and-shoulder and I've never worn it so improperly that one or the other wouldn't be covered (seriously, fucking lap-belts? What era did you cobble that car together from duct-tape in?).

        So... thanks. But I went to driving school, passed my test, in a country where seatbelt use is mandatory at all times (slight exception for reversing at low speed, I believe, but to be honest who's turning that far in their seat to see behind them adequately anyway, I could never work that out), and where everyone buckles up by force of habit when they get into a car and the only people I ever have to remind are foreigners who don't have such laws (because I can be liable if they do not, but more importantly the seat-belt light is mandatory to alert the driver and I have to over-ride it from the steering wheel on every trip if someone isn't wearing one or it beeps like fuck at me).

        P.S. The seatbelt annoys the fuck out of me on one particular junction on the way home every time, which is almost a blind corner, so you have to edge-out slowly into a road where people don't necessarily notice that it's a junction. Hence you have to LEAN FORWARD to see out the sides properly, edge out slowly, etc. And every time I lean slightly forward to try to see as much as possible, before my car comes to a full halt, which means the seatbelt locks (so if there was a collision, it wouldn't fire the airbag into my face) and I have to wait few more seconds before I can see. Drives me insane and catches me every day for the last three years. But I still buckle up before the car even moves and don't release unless I'm at home. EVERY. SINGLE. TIME.

        Seriously, would you like a signed, witnessed testimonial? Every god-damn time.
        And it's not even regarded as that unusual as nobody who gets into my car ever has to be reminded to do the same unless they are American.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday July 07 2017, @04:38PM

          by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Friday July 07 2017, @04:38PM (#536168) Journal

          A) Not playing it down. You called it a, "death sentence," which is overplaying it. Many people survive such injuries. Which you seem to deny.

          B) Yeah. And it can happen EVEN THOUGH THE AIRBAG DEPLOYS. It can happen in a Tesla. It can happen in a Volvo. It depends entirely upon the physics of the particular accident and the deployment time of the bag versus the forward acceleration of the person less the restraining force of the belt after it deploys. So don't make it out like in order to get a head injury one CAN'T have been wearing the belt. Which is my point here - one can wear a belt perfectly and nevertheless get a head injury from a steering wheel.

          (The severity of which depends upon both the speed of impact with the wheel, and the speed with which the brain impacts the frontal bone in coup-contrecoup motion if you want to speak the language of emergency medicine. But if it's enough to leave a mark it gets treated as the crisis it is. Then again, any airbag deployment with any significant vehicle damage gets treated as serious trauma in any event because head injury is just one of the ways one dies in an accident. Just as common is injury to the heart caused by the restraint of the shoulder belt.)

          C) You don't have a lap-belt on your car? Even if you have a shoulder strap? Yeah, the part that goes ACROSS YOUR WAIST is a LAP BELT, even in a three point harness where it is part and parcel of the shoulder belt. Sorry if you call that bit something different, or if you live in a backwards country where nothing goes across your waist. (Or you drive a car using a four point harness. More safe but nobody does it outside of racing in the U.S.) And MOST people wear that lap belt above the iliac crest (the top of your hips for any who don't know anatomy.) Such that in an accident it restrains your intestines / bladder and maybe base of stomach if you ride it really high. Which causes unintentional soft tissue abdominal injuries in an accident, because it's meant to ride on that upper part of your hips.

          Oh, and in the U.S., seatbelt use for adults is mandatory by law in all states except New Hampshire. I'll grant you that compliance isn't all that great always. And you're right - make it a habit you do without thinking and it is easy and it should be.

          I'm sorry I jumped all over you. But your stating all steering wheel head impacts is a death sentence is incorrect. As is your assertion that one can't get a steering wheel injury while wearing a seatbelt. (Or did you miss the bit that said a belt was being used in TFA?) And I've seen enough of them to know, to call that out as bullshit.

          --
          This sig for rent.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @07:24PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @07:24PM (#536230)

          Some of my scariest moments while driving have been when I desperately needed to look over my shoulder, but the damn seatbelt had locked up due to braking. Oh, I'm braking hard in a stressful situation, so just take away my ability to see. If I can't see the vehicles around me, maybe I can't hit them?????

          Thus I always drive with my shoulder way forward. I both hunch over the steering wheel and twist my upper body.

          So far, crash avoidance has worked, despite my seatbelt's attempt to kill me.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @08:53PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @08:53PM (#536258)

            Sounds like you are a candidate for better-aimed mirrors. I have my side mirrors out so I can't quite see the sides of my own car (unless I move my head slightly sideways), this minimizes the blind spot. And, I'm polling the mirrors constantly in heavy traffic, so I know if someone has entered the blind spot. Only times I turn around are in parking or backing up.

            Have you tried any of the newer cars with blind spot warning?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 08 2017, @02:23AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 08 2017, @02:23AM (#536376)

              When I drive a huge van, I do use the mirrors. I can aim mirrors correctly. This is not a nice way to drive; normal cars are much more enjoyable.

              When driving a normal car, I want to look around. The mirrors are always small in a car. (vans have big ones) Newer cars have crap mirrors, with an extra lens that gives two small images instead of one nice big image.

              I don't know much about blind spot warning. I assume it has latency issues. If it is an actual warning, it probably has false alarms all the time. If it is an LCD screen, it will have brightness problems and blur.

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by JNCF on Friday July 07 2017, @03:40PM (5 children)

    by JNCF (4317) on Friday July 07 2017, @03:40PM (#536145) Journal

    Let's not forget that Tesla has been the target of malicious [tesla.com] conspiracies [tesla.com] in the past. I don't know shit about the IIHS, but since they're an organization made of humans I assume they can be influenced by moneyed interests. I would love to see a full write-up by Tesla about what specifically they think was wrong about the methods used by the IIHS. I hope they were getting their own live data during the test, as they were when the NYT journalist secretly drove in circles to drain the battery. Of course, Tesla could just be playing damage control and using language that evokes past conspiracies as a way of misleading people like me into thinking that their vehicles are safer than they really are. I'm really up in the air at this point.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @05:17PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 07 2017, @05:17PM (#536185)

      IIHS is funded by the USA insurance industry. Very easy to follow the money. From memory (but don't have references just now) IIHS has been caught out a few times, playing fast and loose with test techniques / test data.

      > I'm really up in the air at this point.
      That part of the accident is easy, the landing &/or crash-stop is the part that hurts!

    • (Score: 2, Disagree) by n1 on Friday July 07 2017, @10:33PM (3 children)

      by n1 (993) on Friday July 07 2017, @10:33PM (#536295) Journal

      In your Top Gear example, Tesla even sued over it but lost the case.

      And on damage control, Tesla plays a lot of that in regard to their financial status and sales, refundable deposits, 'in transit inventory', production targets and a whole host of other figures and technical details (which usually they just don't share at all). They have a rabid fan-base who cannot accept anything less than 'best cars/solar/battery technology in the world' as the description of their products, even if no one outside of insiders has even seen them. Anyone who says anything critical about Tesla is always accused of being part of some grand conspiracy and in the pocket of oil companies.

      Some people may well have vested interests to not like Tesla, but the same can be said of the people who own the stock and the cars, they have vested interests in talking the cash hemorrhaging company up as much as possible and dismissing any criticism.

      Most recent example... It was only after the announcement (after the announcement of the announcement, of the announcement about 'big news') of the M3 being 'delivered' and 'ahead of schedule' at the end of this month (to insiders and employees, not retail customers) with 20k production target for December, that the quarterly report came out admitting they had a 'production shortfall' caused by 'new technologies' in the batteries... They had production shortfalls and technical problems with adjusted but existing product lines, but you cannot have any apprehension about the awesomeness of the Model 3 and it hitting 200,000-500,000 (or 2million some fans expect) production.

      Also for a company that talks about 'exponential' growth and scale all the time, last year they sold about 80,000 Model S and X... This year they're now targeting "sort of the 100K – roughly 100K total for the year for Model S and Model X, combined."

      Just as the next problem starts to become unavoidable, Tesla is always ready to jump in with the next thing that will turn around the company... Originally the Model S was going to pay for the Model 3 production, it didn't, but then they went and made the Model X which even Musk admitted many mistakes were made on.... Now with the Model 3 almost launched, months after initially planned, and even then it's going to be drip-fed to insiders and no test drives. But they've also apparently changed the plan that the Model 3 will be the cash-cow they need to remain solvent, that's going to be the Model Y due in a couple years or so... But if that doesn't float your boat, the Tesla Semi will be a revolution, or the pickup, or the solar roofs.... And on the solar roofs, they've 'sold out' of a product that doesn't even exist -- no functional prototype has been demonstrated -- which was supposed to begin installation last month but there is no signs of that happening yet. and of course, that was after the failing solar city had to be absorbed into Tesla to prevent bankruptcy, creating an even bigger cash burning entity in the process. I've said it before, becoming Too Big To Fail part of the infrastructure seems to be the goal for Tesla, with an energy revolution based on proprietary technology and being the monopoly supplier/manufacturer/service company of it.

      There are enough people on both sides pro and anti Tesla that they basically cancel each other out... The faithful are literally that, they have unwaivering faith in Musk and his quest for 'world domination' as one of his fans put it ... The company has done impressive stuff, I don't disagree, I think most of us could with billions to burn and investors who 'don't care about profitability in the first 20 years, it's still in start-up mode' ... but that doesn't mean there hasn't been failures or deserves to be shielded from criticism because Musk is a 'visionary'...

      The bit that always sticks with me and my concerns with the sustainability of Tesla is... For the big projects undertaken by Musk in recent years, Solar City, Tesla and Space X.... The one that is really doing impressive stuff, the example the fans like to put out to show how amazing he is, is Space X which is not publicly traded and as such does not have to disclose it's finances... The one company that is really impressive with technology and it's achievements -- also is likely profitable -- is the one Musk and associates are keeping to themselves.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Open4D on Saturday July 08 2017, @01:48PM (2 children)

        by Open4D (371) on Saturday July 08 2017, @01:48PM (#536526) Journal

        In your Top Gear example, Tesla even sued over it but lost the case.

        Wasn't that because the court realized that it's not their job to prevent a TV show from misleading its viewers? If so, then JNCF's point stands.

        They had production shortfalls and technical problems with adjusted but existing product lines, but you cannot have any apprehension about the awesomeness of the Model 3 and it hitting 200,000-500,000 (or 2million some fans expect) production.

        I haven't seen anyone claim that you can't have apprehension about Tesla's ability to hit their target numbers.

        Also for a company that talks about 'exponential' growth and scale all the time, last year they sold about 80,000 Model S and X... This year they're now targeting "sort of the 100K – roughly 100K total for the year for Model S and Model X, combined."

        I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Tesla talk about fast growth and scale being important, and how they think the Model 3 will give them that. And in response you're quoting Model S & X figures?

        Just as the next problem starts to become unavoidable, Tesla is always ready to jump in with the next thing that will turn around the company... Originally the Model S was going to pay for the Model 3 production, it didn't, but then they went and made the Model X which even Musk admitted many mistakes were made on.... Now with the Model 3 almost launched, months after initially planned, and even then it's going to be drip-fed to insiders and no test drives. But they've also apparently changed the plan that the Model 3 will be the cash-cow they need to remain solvent, that's going to be the Model Y due in a couple years or so... But if that doesn't float your boat, the Tesla Semi will be a revolution, or the pickup, or the solar roofs.

        This characterization of the situation doesn't match the impression I get. My understanding is as follows. The S & X are profitable in their own right, with high margins. Tesla knows that it's much harder to make money on a low margin car like the Model 3. But they still think they can do it. I haven't seen anything to suggest that they've "changed the plan that the Model 3 will be the cash-cow". Are you just assuming that based on the fact that they have announced their plans for new classes of vehicle in the future? But those announcements (Model Y, Semi, Pick-up) are also 100% consistent with their stated mission [tesla.com] "to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy". I was very glad when I heard those announcements. I hope that incumbent manufacturers in those specific markets and in a lot of other markets now will be accelerating their own programmes to introduce products that can run on sustainable energy.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by n1 on Sunday July 09 2017, @03:01AM (1 child)

          by n1 (993) on Sunday July 09 2017, @03:01AM (#536731) Journal

          Wasn't that because the court realized that it's not their job to prevent a TV show from misleading its viewers? If so, then JNCF's point stands.

          Top Gear is an entertainment show and throws shade on subjective and objective grounds at lots of different cars, Tesla is not special in this regard. Tesla claimed lost sales, malicious intent and libel... An upholding of the complaint would have basically ended Top Gear as an entertainment show. The portrayal of the Roadster in the episode it was featured would have been illustrative of their experiences and opinion, but not definitively accurate play-by-play analysis. That would require a completely different format and would be more a feature length documentary, rather than a segment of an entertainment show. There was no claim of objectivity and it is abundantly that sequences on the show are and have always been scripted and staged.

          What we are left with is a he said/she said, and the ruling says it was not malicious, which was the original commenter's contention. On a related note, people use UK courts for libel because it's one of the easiest jurisdictions to win in, but they couldn't on this one.

          I haven't seen anyone claim that you can't have apprehension about Tesla's ability to hit their target numbers.

          I have, but fair enough. I just happen to follow Tesla closely because it's good entertainment and far less depressing than what's going on in politics. The loyalists are salivating over the '10-20' ... pick a number out your ass gigafactories that are going to spring into existence, so for them, there is no cap on how many units they can make... Even today in Musk's M3 tweet, people are expecting a China factory to break ground any day now, because they're 'in talks' with the Shanghai government.

          I don't understand what point you're trying to make here. Tesla talk about fast growth and scale being important, and how they think the Model 3 will give them that. And in response you're quoting Model S & X figures?

          In 2014 Musk said they were aiming for 50% annual growth in just Model S [seekingalpha.com] for 2015 and beyond... 2014: 31k ... 2015: 50k ... 2016: 51k ... 2017: ??? but with figures so far, they're going to still be around the 50k mark.

          This characterization of the situation doesn't match the impression I get. My understanding is as follows. The S & X are profitable in their own right, with high margins.

          Tesla does have high gross margins, industry leading even... (I am not an accountant) ... However, they do not include R&D, Sales or Admin costs in their margin calculations.... This is significant, most manufactures do include R&D... Tesla has continual R&D on a longer timeframe than most manufactures, since they have so far continued to make significant updates to their existing product lines. The there's the sales and admin costs... Tesla beats other manufacturers because they have margin on wholesale whereas Tesla has margin on retail... But other manufacturers do not own and operate all the sales, service centers and supercharger network... These are hugely significant costs, and will continue to grow in line with revenue/sales as the need for more infrastructure to support the potentially millions of vehicles they hope to sell. Tesla SG&A costs are 10x higher than industry standards. So that, along with their R&D costs means their notable gross margins are not representative of the true costs and margin.

          Are you just assuming that based on the fact that they have announced their plans for new classes of vehicle in the future?

          My problem is they make announcements about reveals of the next big thing a year or two before they happen, and before the the last product revealed comes into production. It just indefinitely extends the time horizon on which you can evaluate Tesla on tangible information as a sustainable business model worthy of support or investment. I am actually looking forward to the pick-up, but i'd rather they announced that just after actual customers got their hands on the model 3, rather than 6+ months before non-insiders got their hands on the M3. And in the midst of all the other announcements.... It's in-keeping with their mission statement, I don't disagree. My issue is with the timing of these announcements and the material information that is released or held back... There's been no updates on M3 reservations, they initially omitted less favorable 'in transit' figures from the latest financial statements, which until then had been included when they were increasing...

          I hope that incumbent manufacturers in those specific markets and in a lot of other markets now will be accelerating their own programmes to introduce products that can run on sustainable energy.

          We are in agreement here... I want a BEV or alternative fuel vehicle, the current situation with ICE is unsustainable.... But I also think Tesla's business model is unsustainable, they want complete control every element of the business, manufacturing, sales and servicing while not accounting for the extra costs that involves. I do not like their 'walled garden' business model. I want the option to service the car myself, or get a third party to service it, the option of non-OEM parts. I do not want OTA updates in any form. What they offer is certainly what some people want, but it's not what everyone wants, or is practically available... I don't want every product I buy to be inextricably linked to an *aaS (as a service) infrastructure.

          As someone outside the US, the majority of people I know do not have a driveway or garage, do not have adequate parking in their place of employment, let alone any real possibility of putting in infrastructure to make it so people can charge at work. Charging a plug-in BEV is not practical for the vast majority of people... Tesla wants to change the world, but it expects the world to change for it. But of course, there's always a project on the horizon that will be the tipping point, which will make the world change for Tesla.

          While pushing the world to move onto 'sustainable energy' is the stated goal, my perception is the focus is on 'S3XY' ... the optics, status, ego more than the noble goal. The solar roof is an example of this, existing solar tech is pretty good and could be improved upon... What doesn't improve the efficiency, availability and wider adaption of this technology is making it into aesthetically pleasing tiles... For all the 'futuristic' elements of the car design, the solar roof is being designed to fit in with a century+ old visual. What it looks like is more important then getting a solar roof onto as many homes as possible.

          Please do not construe any of this as an argument against EV's, solar or 'green energy'... I am extremely supportive of those products and ideals, but my opinion is Tesla in it's current business model and approach is not the solution we need.

          • (Score: 2) by Open4D on Sunday July 09 2017, @12:46PM

            by Open4D (371) on Sunday July 09 2017, @12:46PM (#536809) Journal

            I don't have a problem with Top Gear showing, say, a 1 day journey by James May from A to B, but including footage filmed the next day with a different driver, on a stretch of road that May didn't even use. IIRC, what they actually did with the Roadster was show a scene of it running out of energy mid-lap. This gave the impression that charge levels could be a surprise to a competent driver (as if you could be driving in the outside lane of a motorway and suddenly come to a halt or something), and furthermore that Tesla as a company was incompetent enough to provide Top Gear with a test vehicle with a certain level of charge and not properly communicate how much driving footage Top Gear would be able to obtain with that much charge. The reality is that these impressions are false, and (IIRC) the test vehicle provided by Tesla never ran out of charge; the scene was faked. I do have a problem with that, and I consider it to be either malicious, or so bad that we should treat it as such anyway.

            But so what? I don't consider it the job of any court to prevent a TV show from maliciously misleading its viewers. Honesty is a moral imperative. It should only be a legal imperative in very select circumstances (contracts, under oath, etc.). I am British and I gave money to the UK libel reform campaign that achieved some success earlier this decade. I think further reform is needed. I am glad Tesla lost their case against Top Gear. But I think JNCF's point stands ... well, sort of. On reflection I note that s/he used the word "conspiracies". AFAICT, there is no evidence that the NYT or Top Gear incidents were conspiracies, and I think they probably weren't.

            (What does irritate me is that whenever I find myself cheering on a court for refraining from overstepping what its mandate is / should be, my 'tribe' seems to lose out. In this case my tribe is pro-EV. Another example would be decriminalizing assisted suicide - which is something I very much want to happen by the time I might need it myself. Reading the words "that's a matter for Parliament" coming from a judge is like music to my ears. But the one time it happens, why does it have to be the one time that I disagree with parliament on one of these matters?)

  • (Score: 4, Informative) by Zeph3r on Friday July 07 2017, @09:28PM (2 children)

    by Zeph3r (6572) on Friday July 07 2017, @09:28PM (#536273)
    That liar at Forbes intentionally misquoted Telsa. The actual quote is as follows:

    Tesla's Model S received the highest rating in IIHS's crash testing in every category except for one, the small overlap front crash test, where it received the second highest rating available. While IIHS and dozens of other private industry groups around the world have methods and motivations that suit their own subjective purposes, the most objective and accurate independent testing of vehicle safety is currently done by the U.S. government, which found Model S and Model X to be the two cars with the lowest probability of injury of any cars that it has ever tested, making them the safest cars in history.

    • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday July 07 2017, @10:14PM

      by kaszz (4211) on Friday July 07 2017, @10:14PM (#536286) Journal

      The above quotation should indicate that what Tesla needs to do is to analyze and fix the problem. Redo and do it right. As for conspiracies, just get independent test data and scrutinize them hard. If they can prove IIHS is up to no good, they could have send them to court of public ridicule and shaming for collaborating with filthy industries.

      Btw, dishonest reporting seems to be the hallmark of mainstream media. As well as less then truthful reporting..

    • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Open4D on Saturday July 08 2017, @01:21PM

      by Open4D (371) on Saturday July 08 2017, @01:21PM (#536516) Journal

      They quoted it correctly word-for-word. You have included additional words, both before and after the part that Forbes quoted. But those additional bits don't change the meaning of the bit they did quote. The simple fact is, Tesla's response to a safety test has been to state that the testing organization has "methods and motivations that suit their own subjective purposes". Now, in the same sentence, Tesla is also claiming the U.S. government is the most objective and accurate, but I don't see how that mitigates what they've said about IIHS - especially talking about their "motivations" and "purposes".

      Do you still stand by your claim of "dishonest reporting" and that a "liar at Forbes intentionally misquoted Telsa"?

(1)