Tesla to recall more than 46,000 Cybertrucks due to exterior panel issue
cnn.com
cnn.com
I still can't believe people continue to pay a premium to a brand that has (one of?) the highest recall rates in the industry.
Teslas marketing is genius though, preventing them from being known as death traps by regular people.
What are the stats you're referencing here? I find this difficult to believe, as modern cars are generally much safer than cars from the 1970s and Teslas seem to perform well in crash tests. They'd need to be incredibly dangerous relative to other modern cars to be as dangerous as a typical car from the 1970s.
> An analysis published Thursday by the auto news website FuelArc found that, in their one year of existence, the approximately 34,000 Cybertrucks on the roads had five fire fatalities, giving them a fatality rate of 14.5 per 100,000 units. That’s 17 times the fatality rate of the Ford Pintos, whose famously flawed gas tank design on the car’s rear end led to 27 reported fire fatalities in its nine years on the road, resulting in a fatality rate of 0.85 per 100,000 units, according to FuelArc.
The Ford Pinto number is the total number of deaths that the NHTSA found to have occurred between 1970 and mid-1977 (so not the full 9-year period) in rear-impact crashes that resulted in a fire.
This is not comparable to the total number of fatalities involving fire and a Cybertruck (regardless of the impact type, or lack thereof, e.g. the Las Vegas fatality was due to the guy shooting himself in the head). Not a single one of the three Cybertruck incidents would have been included in the Ford Pinto statistic because none of them were rear-impact crashes that resulted in a fire.
According to the Wikipedia article about the Pinto:
> At the time only 1% of automobile crashes would result in fire and only 4% of fatal accidents involved fire, and only 15% of fatal fire crashes are the result of rear-end collisions.
So we'd expect the total fire fatality rate to be about 6.5x the fatality rate specific to rear-end collisions that resulted in fire.
And of course, saying "Teslas are more dangerous than Ford Pintos" is very different than saying "the Tesla Cybertruck has a higher rate of fire fatalities than the Ford Pinto." Even the latter statement would be incorrect but the former is simply absurd.
But the Pinto was prone to rear end collisions causing fires. So the correct ratio is unknown, and presumably wouldn't be close to 15%.
I agree in general that the linked article is junk.
Do for example insurance companies provide such data?
The unsafe practices were just common for the time and it wasn't Ford being uniquely dumb.
NHTSA gives a 1-5 star rating for vehicle safety and both the Model 3 and Model Y score 5 stars in all 3 categories:
Frontal Crash: 5 stars
Side Crash: 5 stars
Rollover: 5 stars
A 2023 Toyota Prius gets: Frontal Crash: 4 stars
Side Crash: 5 stars
Rollover: 4 stars
Chevy Bolt: Frontal Crash: 5 stars
Side Crash: 5 stars
Rollover: 4 stars
Mercedes E Class: Frontal Crash: 5 stars
Side Crash: 5 stars
Rollover: 4 starshttps://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/wife-radiologist-drove-...
Also it's super twisted that he drove his family off the cliff on purpose to kill them all. Yeesh.
And we're talking about the cybertruck here, the Model Y is irrelevant to this conversation.
According to the Wikipedia article about the Pinto:
> At the time only 1% of automobile crashes would result in fire and only 4% of fatal accidents involved fire, and only 15% of fatal fire crashes are the result of rear-end collisions.
So as a back of the envelope calculation, we'd expect the total number of Pinto fire fatalities to be about 6.5x the fire fatality rate specific to rear-end collisions. Even then, I doubt that statistic would include incidents like the Las Vegas case where the man shot himself in the head while detonating an improvised explosive in his Cybertruck.
This doesn't even get into sample size - the Tesla numbers are based on only 3 incidents and 5 fatalities:
- one, a single-car accident in which 3 people died,
- two, a single-car accident in which 1 person died, and
- three, the driver shot himself in the head
If, say, the first driver hadn't had any passengers and the third driver had not been included in the sample (because it's not a collision), the Cybertruck's rate would be 60% lower. With such a small sample, it's very silly to make confident assertions about the relative risks here.
Finally, both articles are only talking about fire risks, not overall safety record. I would definitely bet that the Cybertruck has a significantly lower fatality rate per mile than a 1975 Pinto purely based on changes in vehicle safety testing and engineering since the 1970s.
This non-stop propaganda misinformation attacks against Tesla and all the people that believe it is out of control and very sad to see.
Here's some more 'sad to see' propaganda: https://www.roadandtrack.com/news/a62919131/tesla-has-highes...
There are legitimate reasons to not like Musk or Tesla, no need to resort to misinformation. If there are no such reasons then it's a bad thing to try and make things up.
When millions of people use a car day in and day out and don’t even notice a recall, I wouldn’t expect them to care.
As an example of why recalls are not the end all-be all either, Subaru lost a phantom power draw class action lawsuit due to faulty design of their Starlink head unit, and they didn’t even have to do a recall, even though it cost me thousands to fix.
And because I fixed it myself before the lawsuit, I’m not eligible for any compensation, even though Subaru knows every VIN with the faulty design.
What I find funny is that, historically, the Tesla fans would laugh at every other car company's recalls, when Tesla only had a relatively small number of cars on the road. Now they recall just like everyone else.
Noting that sharp-edged, robust stainless steel trim pieces falling of cars can be a pretty significant safety risk to the traffic around the affected car.
While I don't like the Cyber Truck design aesthetically or technically the manufacturing techniques used to create it are impressive. I do wonder if the manufacturing was done this way to have an option to make cheap military vehicles at scale, like how VW factories are now considering being repurposed to produce military vehicles.
Personally the Toyota Hilux Champ 2.4L diesel is more my speed.
... I mean, while it would be very _funny_, I'm not sure that there's much market for self-disassembling tanks.
The versatility of the CyberTruck manufacturing chain would make it pretty easy to pump out many variants for different roles and easily change the variants as tactics progress.
I know nothing about materials science, but I'm curious if it could then be stamped at the corners/edges to create some sort of surface that could be used to attach using rivets/weld/bolts
The early prototypes had 3mm thick panels so it's likely some design decisions were left over form that.
For example, panels can be screwed in, welded, glued, riveted, snugly fitted, attached with some kind of retaining bolt... And so on. When assembling IKEA furniture, someone clearly though some bits require dowels, other screws or nails, other still those weird round spirally things that, when twisted, pull the metal bit in.
I guess car panels obviously (???) need to be removable for repairs, but still. In an alternative universe, I'd love to be an engineer and understand some of those things.
The main breakdown in this analogy is that the differences between manufacturing techniques can be immense, so the range of "good" techniques for any specific application is much narrower. Using one manufacturing technique vs another might result in not being able to ship your product in separate parts, making your shipping costs 20% higher and reducing your profit margin into the "bankruptcy" range.
Those https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/284791145273 (sorry can't seem to find them as an official IKEA part)?
They're quite clever. They achieve at least these things:
- assembly happens from the inside rather than the outside, which looks better and may be easier to assemble in place
- the cam pulls the fixing to a particular depth, and no further. Overtightening a screw would be easily done but completely destroys the chipboard from which IKEA products are made
- load spreading in the chipboard. Again a screw into the end of chipboard would be very prone to splitting it
- very resistant to self-loosening
Tesla probably takes a lot of inspiration from IKEA; but consumers expect a lot more from a 80K USD car expected to last hundreds of thousands of miles, than wobbly furniture that will be trashed at the first move.
Edit: For non car peeps, Lotus build essentially track day cars with a light chassis and as many parts from popular manufacturers as possible to keep maintenance cheap. They see a lot of abuse.
They used to at least. These days they seem to mostly be focusing on electric SUVs and GT cars.
Tesla is using customer as guinea pigs. They don't care if you die, the paperwork says they are not liable for whatever happens. Rest assured they'll learn from your demise and they'll update their software with another experiment that might be less lethal this time, who knows!
Your TV doesn't propel you at 70mph with brakes not responding (https://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tesla-cybertruck-malfunction-drive...), or brakeing whenever it feels like it (https://www.cdr-news.com/categories/litigation/tesla-hit-wit...) or runs you into a wall (https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2024/apr/26/tesla-aut...), the list goes on.
When my TV glitches, nobody dies... ever...
Many modern cars use the body panels as structural members because it is weight efficient, but trucks were probably the last category of automobile to adopt this trend. It is not necessarily bad design to have a separate frame, you just pay a weight penalty. Engineers may choose to do this because they have other design priorities than weight.
Tl;dr: Glue is an okay design choice. Non-structural panels are an okay design choice. The Tesla engineers just didn’t get the details right.
I think a lot of people commenting on this have no idea how much of their car is held together with glue. The interesting thing here is that the glue failed, not that glue was used in the first place.
If you look at, say, https://www.paintedcarpanels.co.uk/ford%2Dfocus%2D2008%2D201... - left of photo you can see a "tab" extending from the panel with bolt holes, and top you can see a semi-circular pair of prongs. The panels are bolted on, and the bolts hide inside the engine bay or under other bits of trim.
The Cybertruck deliberately uses flat panels for its "aesthetic", and I believe their material is harder to bend for purposes of making these little fixing points. Combine that with the polygonal structure and there's probably no other way to do it other than welding mounts to the back.
Still a bizarre decision, though: what happens when you need to change a panel? How do you get them unglued only at the right time? How heat-sensitive is it?
This informed the whole design, it would lead to a lightweight, low cost truck that could be delivered with the battery tech available at the time. They highlighted not painting it as a cost saving move at the reveal.
Then they gave up on that idea as unworkable, but kept the look, so it's like designing a bit of furniture around some fancy solid wood steam bending technique then trying to fake it with wood laminate.
It was also delayed so long that other truck manufacturers just used the cheaper batteries available by then to make competitive trucks based don standard truck bodies.
(from 2019)
> The terminology Rickard used for this process was "to score" the sheet. Musk talked about how deep a score the Cybertruck needed for bends via Twitter. He said, “Even bending it requires a deep score on inside of bend, which is how the prototype was made.”
After the design is drawn out, the corners and edges are cut out with either a laser cutter or a water jet, while the sheet lays flat. Next, the stainless steel sheet is folded, like origami, and welded into shape.
“You basically take one or two sheets and fold them up into a truck, which is a huge cost-saving,” said Rickard. According to him, the whole process makes stamping machines unnecessary and lends itself well to robot laser assembly.
https://www.tesmanian.com/blogs/tesmanian-blog/elon-musk-exp...
Gluing makes things harder to fix.
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fi.redd.it%2F5...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PK_EJ3DyiiA&t=1110s
But still it came off a lot easier than I would have expected.
I kind of hate linking to this channel because in some ways I think it's the worst of YouTube.
Also lol @ this post instantly being forced off the front page.
He does that a lot.
Stock is overvalued to hell. Leadership continues to sell (AI, self driving vehicles, tesla pays for itself via taxi service, …) investors on new projects but ultimately failing to deliver to market.
The “Cybertruck” flop is just the most recent example.
Did you also catch the gaudy sales pitch Elon and Orange Man had on the _White House_ lawn? This company is a failure. Its leadership is clueless. It’s all built on a house of cards.
A bicycle is by far more attractive that these oddities.
Don’t just listen to the haters, there are a bunch of us that actually enjoy our cybertrucks :)
There is a reason why modern cars aren’t that stiff.
What a joke of a company. They survive on battery tech, and software, but the rest of their engineering is dismal.
right?
I suspect it includes all the unsold ones sitting in storage lots, but who knows.
"Well, I mean, not for very long..."
/s